4.2 Article

Risk Profile of Male College Athletes Who Use Performance-Enhancing Substances

期刊

JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
卷 70, 期 6, 页码 919-923

出版社

ALCOHOL RES DOCUMENTATION INC CENT ALCOHOL STUD RUTGERS UNIV
DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2009.70.919

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Drug Abuse [DA17552]
  2. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [T32AA07569]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: There is a general perception that use of performance-enhancing substances (PESs) does not fit the standard profile of substance use. This study sought to determine whether users of PESs report high-risk patterns of alcohol and other drug use and demonstrate risk behaviors associated with problematic substance use. Method: Anonymous self-report questionnaires were administered to a sample of 234 male student athletes. PES users were defined as college athletes who reported past-year use of a broad array of PESs (including stimulants, hormone precursors, and nutritional supplements). Results: Male athlete PES users (n = 73) compared with nonusers (n = 160) reported more problematic alcohol-use behaviors and more alcohol- and drug-use-related problems. The former compared with the latter was also more likely to report past-year use of tobacco products, marijuana, cocaine, psychedelics, and prescription drugs without a prescription. In addition, PES users demonstrated higher sensation seeking, and greater coping and enhancement motivations for drinking and marijuana use than non-PES users. Conclusions: Although banned PESs are not typically viewed as having a high addiction potential, male athletes who use these drugs may be more likely to participate in other problematic substance-use behaviors. Importantly, the male athletes in this study who reported PES use also participated in substance-use behaviors that can have profound negative effects on athletic performance. More research on the use of PESs in college athletes is needed. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 70: 919-923, 2009)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据