4.2 Article

Prescription opioid medication misuse among university students

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 618-624

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajad.12807

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives Methods Prescription opioid misuse is an established problem in the United States. Less information is known regarding the clinical and cognitive characteristics of prescription opioid misusers, specifically in a college age population. This study sought to characterize individuals who misuse prescription opioids and the differences between current, past and non-misusers. A 156-item survey was administered to over 9,449 university students at a large, public Midwestern university. Survey questions obtained demographic information, self-reported grade point average, sexual behavior, mental health characteristics, and substance use. Participants also completed assessments that asked questions regarding impulsivity, mental health, substance use, and other impulsive behaviors including gambling and sexual activity. 3,522 students completed the survey and were included in the analysis. Results Conclusions and Scientific Significance Of this group, 2.2% reported misusing prescription opioids in the last 12 months and another 5.3% reported misusing prescription opioids previously but not in the past year. This study found prescription opioid misusers to be more likely to live off campus, have a lower GPA, and exhibit increased impulsivity. Prescription opioid misusers were also more likely to report earlier age of sexual activity and were less likely to use barrier protection during sexual activity. This study identifies a number of risk factors for those misusing prescription opioids that can be used to develop and refine prescription opioid misuse screening tools for university health centers. It also identifies a number of concurring behaviors that can simultaneously be addressed when prescription opioid misusers are identified. (Am J Addict 2018;XX:1-7)

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