共 7 条
Profiles of alcohol and cannabis protective behavioral strategies use across two large, multi-site college student samples of concurrent alcohol and cannabis users
被引:4
|作者:
Richards, Dylan K.
[1
]
Gren, Jakub D.
[1
,2
]
Pearson, Matthew R.
[1
]
机构:
[1] Univ New Mexico, Ctr Alcohol Subst And Addict CASAA, 2650 Yale SE MSC11 6280, Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA
[2] Inst Psychiat & Neurol Warsaw, Publ Hlth Dept, Jana III Sobieskiego 9, PL-02957 Warsaw, Poland
关键词:
Harm reduction;
Protective behavioral strategies;
Alcohol;
Cannabis;
College students;
Latent profile analysis;
MARIJUANA USE;
CONSEQUENCES;
INVOLVEMENT;
DRINKING;
D O I:
10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107789
中图分类号:
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号:
040203 ;
摘要:
Concurrent use of alcohol and cannabis among college students is common and confers greater harms than the use of either of these substances alone. Large and growing bodies of literature have demonstrated the independent utility of behaviors used before, during, after, or instead of alcohol and cannabis use that minimize related harms (i.e., protective behavioral strategies [PBS]). However, little is known about the relationship between alcohol and cannabis PBS and their joint influence on harms among college students who concurrently use alcohol and cannabis. In the present study, we used data from two large, multi-site samples of college students, and restricted analyses to those who reported at least one episode of alcohol and cannabis use in the past 30 days (Study 1: N = 1104[Mage = 20.3, SD = 3.8; 70.0 % female; 79.5 % white]; Study 2: N = 2034[Mage = 20.2, SD = 3.2; 69.1 % female; 76.6 % white]). A latent profile analysis supported a 4-profile solution that was largely consistent across samples: Profile 1 (low alcohol/cannabis PBS; 8.8-11.9 %), Profile 2 (average alcohol/ cannabis PBS; 33.1-37.7 %), Profile 3 (average alcohol PBS/low cannabis PBS; 16.3-25.2 %), and Profile 4 (high alcohol/cannabis PBS; 29.8-37.2 %). Profile 4 reported the least alcohol/cannabis use, fewest negative alcohol-/ cannabis-related consequences, and lowest alcohol/cannabis use severity. In contrast, Profile 1 was the opposite for alcohol-related outcomes, and Profile 3 was the opposite for cannabis-related outcomes. These findings are preliminary but may suggest that targeting both alcohol and cannabis PBS in intervention is generally beneficial except some groups at risk for a particular substance may benefit from increased focus on that substance in intervention.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文