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 in county0.999+(0.999–1.000)1.000(0.999–1.002)Neighborhood disadvantage0.938(0.399–2.205)0.223(0.034–1.479)Own religion discourages drinking0.653***(0.548–0.779)1.264(0.866–1.844)Note. Models also adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, level of education, marital status, employment status, income and survey year.***p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, + p < 0.10.aAdjusted Wald test for the interaction of FH with liquor store density for high-risk drinking by male drinkers was not statistically significant (F(3,20949) = 0.44, p = .725), so interaction terms were removed to improve interpretability of the model. None of the interactions of FH with religious density were statistically significant (all p > .10; detailed results available upon request), and they also were removed from the models.
