Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) · 2017
Rates and Correlates of Binge Drinking Among College Students With Disabilities, United States, 2013.
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
West Steven L, Graham Carolyn W, Temple Peter
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to provide the first comprehensive picture of alcohol use and binge drinking by US college students with disabilities (SWDs), who represent at least 11% (1.6 million) of the US college student population.
METHODS: In fall 2013, we used a stratified random sampling technique to identify and recruit 2440 SWDs from 122 US colleges and universities. A total of 1285 (53%) SWDs from 61 (50%) colleges and universities completed a survey of alcohol and other drug use and the use of substances by student peers. We conducted 4 multiple logistic regression analyses to compare binge-drinking and non-binge-drinking SWDs by potential correlates of such use and a final model that included only significant variables.
RESULTS: SWDs aged <21 vs ≥21 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.99) who spent more time vs less time socializing (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38), who spent less time vs more time studying (OR = -0.89; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.99), and who used vs did not use marijuana (OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18-1.75) or amphetamines (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) were significantly more likely to binge drink. SWDs who reported using barbiturates were less likely to binge drink than were those who did not use barbiturates (OR = -0.36; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.61). In the final model, use of amphetamines (OR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.15-2.65) or marijuana (OR = 1.60; 95% CI, 1.32-1.94) was the highest predictor of binge drinking.
CONCLUSION: SWDs' reported rates of binge drinking, although high, were not as high as those of nondisabled college students. Nevertheless, prevention efforts should be targeted toward college SWDs.
METHODS: In fall 2013, we used a stratified random sampling technique to identify and recruit 2440 SWDs from 122 US colleges and universities. A total of 1285 (53%) SWDs from 61 (50%) colleges and universities completed a survey of alcohol and other drug use and the use of substances by student peers. We conducted 4 multiple logistic regression analyses to compare binge-drinking and non-binge-drinking SWDs by potential correlates of such use and a final model that included only significant variables.
RESULTS: SWDs aged <21 vs ≥21 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.99) who spent more time vs less time socializing (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38), who spent less time vs more time studying (OR = -0.89; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.99), and who used vs did not use marijuana (OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18-1.75) or amphetamines (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) were significantly more likely to binge drink. SWDs who reported using barbiturates were less likely to binge drink than were those who did not use barbiturates (OR = -0.36; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.61). In the final model, use of amphetamines (OR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.15-2.65) or marijuana (OR = 1.60; 95% CI, 1.32-1.94) was the highest predictor of binge drinking.
CONCLUSION: SWDs' reported rates of binge drinking, although high, were not as high as those of nondisabled college students. Nevertheless, prevention efforts should be targeted toward college SWDs.