adherence increased.Table 4Select coefficients from reduced models stratified by race/ethnicity.White DrinkersHigh-risk Drinking(wtd N = 8,109)Dependence(wtd N = 8,527)OR95% CIOR95% CIAUD in extended family only1.370**(1.082–1.736)2.138**(1.310–3.490)AUD in 1st degree1.814***(1.437–2.289)2.861***(1.722–4.756)AUD in 1st degree and extended1.582**(1.200–2.086)5.506***(3.416–8.877)Liquor/convenience stores per mi21.027+(0.999–1.055)1.008(0.963–1.056)Religious adherence in county1.000(0.999–1.001)1.001(0.999–1.002)Extended family X Religious adherence0.999(0.998–1.001)– a1st degree X Religious adherence0.998*(0.997–1.000)–1st degree & extended X Religious adherence0.999(0.998–1.001)–Neighborhood disadvantage0.646(0.295–1.412)1.340(0.144–12.466)Own religion discourages drinking0.559***(0.481–0.649)1.132(0.764–1.677) Black DrinkersHigh-risk Drinking(wtd N = 864)Dependence(wtd N = 928)OR95% CIOR95% CIAUD in extended family only1.670**(1.133–2.463)0.843(0.316–2.247)AUD in 1st degree1.613*(1.045–2.491)1.517(0.568–4.051)AUD in 1st degree and extended2.007**(1.297–3.107)4.440**(1.760–11.206)Liquor/convenience stores per mi21.018(0.981–1.056)0.882(0.720–1.079)Extended family X Liquor stores– b1.067(0.778–1.463)1st degree X Liquor stores–1.203+(0.967–1.497)1st degree & extended X Liquor stores–1.213(0.868–1.695)Religious adherence in county0.998*(0.997–1.000)0.999(0.996–1.002)Neighborhood disadvantage1.702(0.401–7.228)0.136(0.007–2.657)Own religion discourages drinking0.722*(0.531–0.981)1.420(0.747–2.701) Hispanic DrinkerscHigh-risk Drinking(wtd N = 1,026)Dependence(wtd N = 1,086)OR95% CIOR95% CIAUD in extended family only1.231(0.861–1.759)1.642(0.806–3.347)AUD in 1st degree1.285(0.869–1.901)1.846+(0.933–3.651)AUD in 1st degree and extended1.279(0.823–1.987)1.937*(1.008–3.721)Liquor/convenience stores per mi21.013(0.976–1.051)1.050(0.988–1.116)Religious adherence in county1.000(0.999–1.002)1.002+(1.000–1.004)Neighborhood disadvantage0.613(0.171–2.200)0.322(0.029–3.510)Own religion discourages drinking0.759+(0.564–1.021)1.540+(0.926–2.563)Note. Models also adjusted for age, sex, level of education, marital status, employment status, income and survey year. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, + p < 0.10. a Adjusted Wald tests were not statistically significant for the interaction of FH with religious density for dependence among White drinkers (F(3,20828) = 0.36, p = .779); neither of
