For female drinkers (see Table 3 ), there was an interaction of FH with alcohol availability in relation to high-risk drinking. Contrasts showed the interaction was significant for the group of women with either an affected first-degree relative or a high-density FH (adjusted Wald test: F(2,20479) = 3.49, p = .031). This followed a similar pattern as seen in the full sample (Fig. 3 ), with these women showing differentially elevated probability of high-risk drinking if they lived in areas with high alcohol availability.Table 3Select coefficients from reduced models stratified by sex.Female DrinkersHigh-risk Drinking(wtd N = 4,797)Dependence(wtd N = 5,300)OR95% CIOR95% CIAUD in extended family only1.354**(1.077–1.703)1.999+(0.940–4.253)AUD in 1st degree1.457***(1.158–1.832)2.677**(1.302–5.501)AUD in 1st degree and extended1.234(0.934–1.630)3.127**(1.524–6.414)Liquor/convenience stores per mi21.026(0.984–1.070)1.029(0.928–1.140)Extended family X Liquor stores1.039(0.961–1.124)0.588*(0.353–0.979)1st degree X Liquor stores1.110*(1.003–1.228)0.860(0.663–1.116)1st degree & extended X Liquor stores1.138+(0.999–1.296)1.009(0.866–1.177)Religious adherents in county1.000(0.999–1.000)1.001(0.999–1.003)Neighborhood disadvantage0.548(0.224–1.342)3.598(0.281–46.105)Own religion discourages drinking0.537***(0.449–0.642)1.282(0.823–1.998) Male DrinkersHigh-risk Drinking(wtd N = 5,322)Dependence(wtd N = 5,360)OR95% CIOR95% CIAUD in extended family only1.227*(1.013–1.486)1.614+(0.988–2.636)AUD in 1st degree1.367**(1.114–1.677)2.050**(1.227–3.425)AUD in 1st degree and extended1.523***(1.195–1.941)4.628***(2.887–7.419)Liquor/convenience stores per mi21.004(0.980–1.028)0.959(0.875–1.052)Extended family X Liquor stores– a1.081(0.969–1.207)1st degree X Liquor stores–1.125+(0.981–1.289)1st degree & extended X Liquor stores–1.108(0.964–1.273)Religious adherents
