ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Determine whether college students and non-students seeking emergency medical care experience different lifestyle choices, alcohol-use patterns, and risk profiles.METHODS: Patients aged 18-25 seen in a university-affiliated ED between August 1998 and June 1999 who had >/=1 drinks within the past year were eligible. Patients scoring >5 out of a possible 40 on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) were considered at elevated risk for alcohol problems and were interviewed further to determine alcohol-use patterns and history.RESULTS: Of 1,436 consenting patients, students were more likely to screen positive for alcohol problems than non-students (55% vs 43%; 478/870 vs 245/566). Furthermore, among screen-positive patients, students were more likely than non-students to binge drink in the two weeks prior to screening (82% vs 65%) and to drink illegally (60% vs 38%). Students needed fewer drinks to feel the effects of alcohol (3.9 drinks vs 5.1) and were less likely to request a referral for alcohol treatment (2% vs 8%). However, students had lower baseline risk for alcohol problems than non-students (AUDIT = 11.2 vs 13.2). Students were younger than non-students (20.2 years vs 21.4), older at their first drunken experience (15.3 vs 14.7), and less likely to smoke (51% vs 76%) or have a family history of heavy drinking (5% vs 23%). (p <.01 for all comparisons).CONCLUSIONS: Students exhibit a higher risk than non-students for behaviors associated with acute alcohol-related problems. However, they may be at lower risk for chronic alcohol problems. This university-based ED seems an appropriate venue for early identification and brief, on-site intervention for students with alcohol problems.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To better understand conjoint smoking and drinking among young adult emergency department (ED) patients, the purposes of this investigation were: 1) to assess the prevalence of conjoint use; 2) to determine the factors associated with conjoint alcohol use and smoking; and 3) to address the implications for future ED-based investigation of dual-substance intervention. METHODS: Data for this investigation were obtained from a battery of questionnaires administered to the routine-care patients during an alcohol screening in the ED, which was part of a larger alcohol intervention study. RESULTS: Study findings revealed that a majority of patients with self-reported alcohol-related problems were smokers. In fact, drinkers who smoked were likely to be pack-a-day smokers. Among the study sample, being female, having low education levels (e.g., high school education or less), having some emotional problems, and currently using marijuana were risk factors for conjoint smoking and drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Conjoint users were identifiable through brief screening. Given the prevalence of conjoint smoking and alcohol use among the ED sample and a specific set of risk factors, tailored intervention for alcohol and nicotine dependence may be an important and opportunistic clinical ED service.
