Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle Sandra Bullock

SoRAD
Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs
Stockholm University
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
A Study of the Attitudes, Beliefs and Use of Alcohol and Drugs
among Swedish University Students
Sandra Bullock
SoRAD – Research Report nr 21 – 2004
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
A Study of the Attitudes, Beliefs and Use of Alcohol and Drugs
among Swedish University Students
Sandra Bullock
SoRAD – Research Report nr 21 – 2004
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
A Study of the Attitudes, Beliefs and Use of Alcohol and Drugs
among Swedish University Students
by Sandra Bullock
© Sandy Bullock
SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr 21 – 2004
SoRADs rapportserie ISSN 1650-5441
ISBN 91-975134-7
Tryck av Akademitryck AB, Edsbruk 2004
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table of Contents
Page
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................
Sammanfattning på Svenska...........................................................................................................
iii
v
vi
1
5
1. Introduction and Method.............................................................................................................. 9
Background ........................................................................................................................... 9
Objectives of the Study ......................................................................................................... 9
Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 9
Sample Design ................................................................................................................ 9
Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 10
Mail Procedures .............................................................................................................. 11
Participation Rate .................................................................................................................. 12
Questionnaire Content .......................................................................................................... 13
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 14
Core Measures Used in This Report..................................................................................... 15
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use ........................................................................... 15
Missing Data.......................................................................................................................... 16
2. Sample Characteristics................................................................................................................ 18
Age and Sex Distribution of the Students ............................................................................. 18
Living Situation Prior to Age 18 ............................................................................................. 19
Current Social Status ............................................................................................................ 20
Students’ Current Educational Situation ............................................................................... 22
Participation in Activities at the University............................................................................. 24
3. Prevalence of Alcohol and Tobacco Use .................................................................................... 26
Use of Tobacco Products ...................................................................................................... 26
Alcohol Consumption and Drinking Patterns......................................................................... 28
Risk Factors for Weekly Drinking and Binge Drinking .......................................................... 30
Individual Characteristics ................................................................................................ 30
Pre-university Factors ..................................................................................................... 32
University-related Characteristics ................................................................................... 32
Beverage Preference ...................................................................................................... 34
Multivariate Risk Factors for Binge Drinking ......................................................................... 36
Multivariate Risk Factors for Weekly Drinking....................................................................... 38
4. Prevalence and Context of Illicit Drug Use.................................................................................. 40
Prevalence of Drug Use ........................................................................................................ 40
Prescription Drugs........................................................................................................... 41
University Specific Prevalence Rates ............................................................................. 42
Context and Details of Cannabis Use ................................................................................... 43
Age of Debut ................................................................................................................... 45
Context and Details of Amphetamine and Ecstasy Use ....................................................... 46
Prevalence of Use of Other Drugs ........................................................................................ 47
Risk Factors for Current Cannabis and Prescription Drug Use ............................................ 48
Individual Characteristics ................................................................................................ 48
Pre-university Factors ..................................................................................................... 50
University-related Characteristics ................................................................................... 50
Other Substance Use ...................................................................................................... 53
Multivariate Risk Factors for Cannabis Use .................................................................... 54
i
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
5. Drug and Alcohol Use Problems ................................................................................................. 56
The Occurrence of Substance Use-related Harms ............................................................... 56
Alcohol and Drug Harms by Site ........................................................................................... 57
Risk Factors for Alcohol and Drug Related Harms ............................................................... 57
Individual Characteristics ................................................................................................ 58
Pre-university Factors ..................................................................................................... 58
University-related Characteristics ................................................................................... 60
Other Substance Use ...................................................................................................... 60
The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) ........................................................ 62
Driving Under the Influence................................................................................................... 62
Riding in a Car When the Driver Had Been Drinking ...................................................... 63
6. Reasons Why Students Choose NOT to Try Drugs .................................................................... 64
Desire to Try Drugs ............................................................................................................... 64
Reasons Given by Participants for Not Using Drugs ............................................................ 64
7. Sources of Information, Help and Treatment .............................................................................. 66
Previous Sources of Information and Advice ........................................................................ 66
Preferred Future Sources of Information and Advice............................................................ 67
Treatment for Alcohol and Drug Problems............................................................................ 68
8. Attitudes Towards Drug and Alcohol Use.................................................................................... 70
How Easy is it to Obtain Drugs?............................................................................................ 70
The Relative Importance of Student Alcohol and Drug Use in
Context of Campus Life...................................................................................................... 70
At What Age is it Acceptable to for a Person to Start Smoking,
Drinking and Using Drugs? ............................................................................................... 72
General Attitudes Towards Drugs and Alcohol ..................................................................... 73
9.
Alcohol and Drug Policy and Action ...................................................................................... 78
Does the University Have a Drug or Alcohol Policy? ............................................................ 78
Are the Narcotics Sentences too Severe in Sweden? .......................................................... 78
How Should the University Administration Handle Drug Use
Offences on Campus?....................................................................................................... 78
What would I do?................................................................................................................... 80
10. Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................... 82
References ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix A – Study Materials ......................................................................................................... 85
ii
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
List of Tables
Page
Table 1.1
Response Rate ......................................................................................................... 13
Table 1.2
Reasons for Removing Students From The Gross Sample...................................... 13
Table 1.3
Classification of Tobacco, Alcohol and Other Drugs ................................................ 16
Table 2.1
Age and Sex of the Study Sample, by Site............................................................... 18
Table 2.2
Living Situation of the Study Sample Prior to Age 18, by Site .................................. 20
Table 2.3
Current Student Social Status, by Site...................................................................... 21
Table 2.4
Educational Characteristics of the Sample by Site ................................................... 23
Table 3.1
Percentage of Students Reporting the Use of Tobacco1 Products, by Site.............. 26
Table 3.2
Percentage of Students Reporting the Use of Tobacco1 Products, by Sex,
Age and Current Living Situation, and Number of Academic Points ........................ 27
Table 3.3
Frequency of Alcohol Consumption and Binge Drinking by Site .............................. 30
Table 3.4
Individual Characteristics That Increase the Risk of Drinking Weekly
and Binge Drinking by Students................................................................................ 31
Table 3.5
Pre-university Factors That Increase the Risk of Drinking Weekly and
Binge Drinking by Students....................................................................................... 33
Table 3.6
University-Related Factors That Increase the Risk of Drinking Weekly
and Binge Drinking by Students................................................................................ 35
Table 3.7
Multivariate Logistic Regression Identifying Risk Factors for Bi-weekly
Binge Drinking Among Students ............................................................................... 37
Table 3.8
Multivariate Logistic Regression Identifying Risk Factors for Weekly
Drinking Among Students ......................................................................................... 39
Table 4.1
Prevalence of Use, for the Three Most Regularly Used Categories of
Drugs, by Site............................................................................................................ 42
Table 4.2
Agreement with Statements About Control over Cannabis Use, and
Fear Of Consequences............................................................................................. 46
Table 4.3
Age of Debut ............................................................................................................. 46
Table 4.4
Drug Use Prevalence ................................................................................................ 48
Table 4.5
Individual Characteristics That Increase the Risk For Cannabis
and Prescription Drug Use by Students.................................................................... 49
Table 4.6
Pre-university Factors That Increase the Risk for Cannabis and
Prescription Drug Use by Students........................................................................... 51
Table 4.7
University-Related Factors That Increase the Risk for Cannabis
and Prescription Drug Use by Students.................................................................... 52
Table 4.8
Substance Use Correlates with the Use of Cannabis and
Prescription Drugs by Students ................................................................................ 53
Table 4.9
Multivariate Logistic Regression Identifying Risk Factors for Cannabis
Use During the 12 Months Prior to the Study ........................................................... 55
iii
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 5.1
Harms experienced by Students as a Result of Substance Use .............................. 56
Table 5.2
Cumulative number of areas in which students experienced
Negative Consequences........................................................................................... 57
Table 5.3
Percentage of Students Who Experienced at least One negative
consequence due to Drinking or Drug Use in the 12 months Prior to the
Study, by Site ............................................................................................................ 58
Table 5.4
Individual Characteristics That Increase Students’ Risk of Experiencing
Alcohol and Drug-related Problems ........................................................................ 59
Table 5.5
Pre-university Factors That Increase Students’ Risk of Experiencing
Alcohol and Drug-related Problems ........................................................................ 60
Table 5.6
University-Related Factors That Increase Students’ Risk of Experiencing
Alcohol and Drug-related Problems ........................................................................ 62
Table 5.7
Substance Use Correlates of Experiencing Alcohol and
Drug-related Problems ............................................................................................ 62
Table 6.1
Reasons Not to Use Drugs, by Site .......................................................................... 64
Table 7.1
Past Sources of Drug-related Information and Advice ............................................. 66
Table 7.2
Preferred Future Sources of Drug-related Information and Advice .......................... 68
Table 8.1
Perceived Ease of Obtaining Drugs.......................................................................... 70
Table 8.2
Student’s Rating of the Severity of Various Social Problems on their
University Campus .................................................................................................... 71
Table 8.3
Relative Ranking of Social Problems........................................................................ 72
Table 8.4
The Social Clock, and When Students Judge that it is Acceptable to
Participate in Contested Behaviours......................................................................... 73
Table 8.5
Students’ Agreement and Disagreement with Statements about
Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse and Care in Sweden ................................................. 74
Table 8.6
Students’ Agreement Statements about Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse
and Care in Sweden, by site ..................................................................................... 75
Table 8.7
Students’ Agreement Statements about Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse
and Care in Sweden, by Use of Drugs...................................................................... 76
Table 8.8
Students’ Agreement Statements about Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse
and Care in Sweden, by Drinking Style and Frequency ........................................... 77
Table 9.1
Student’s Response to finding out that someone they know is involved
with Drugs ................................................................................................................. 81
iv
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1
Receipt of Questionnaires......................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.1
Participation in Activities on Campus (current term)................................................. 25
Figure 3.1
How Recently Did Students Have Their Last Drink .................................................. 29
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Use of Any Drug, by Site (Excluding Prescriptives).................................................. 41
Use of Any Drug, by Site (Including Prescriptives) ................................................... 42
Number of Times Cannabis Has Been Used, by Site – Lifetime .............................. 44
Number of Times Amphetamines and Ecstasy Have Ben Used – Lifetime............. 47
Figure 6.1
Top 10 Reasons Given for Not Using Drugs ............................................................ 65
Figure 9.1
Respondent’s Opinions on the Laws Regarding the Selling of
Drugs and the Use of Drugs in Sweden ................................................................... 79
Figure 9.2
Students’ Views Regarding How the University Should Handle
Students Who are Caught With Drugs...................................................................... 79
v
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Acknowledgements
This study could not have been completed without the numerous students and employees at
each of the four participating universities. They worked tirelessly throughout the
questionnaire development and data collection phases of the study, randomly selecting the
participants, creating mailing labels and compiling and mailing questionnaire packages,
receiving response cards as they were returned to the study office and preparing tracking
update reports.
Thank you also to the local coordinators at University for overseeing the tremendous amount
of work that had to be accomplished in a relatively short time period. The coordinators were:
Anna Sonrei from the University of Kalmar, Anna Hansen from Lund University, Claus
Jochheim from Umeå University, and Elizabet Flennemo and Ulrica Olsson from Växjö
University.
I would also like to thank my colleagues at The Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and
Drugs (SoRAD), at Stockholm University and Pia Steen in particular, for their assistance I
helping me to understand the Swedish Educational System and helping to transform the
questionnaire materials from English into Swedish.
Finally, I would like to thank Mobilisering mot Narkotika (Mob) for the funds that made this
study possible, and for laying the initial groundwork for it to take place. The universities also
contributed to the financing of the study by contributing valuable services and materials in
kind, thus keeping the overall budget to a level that was possible to reach.
vi
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle Study (ADSL),
that was conducted in the fall of 2003, and funded by Mobilizering mot Narkotika (Mob).
The data represents responses from 4575 undergraduate university students from four
universities across Sweden: The University of Kalmar, Lund University, Umeå University
and Växjö University. Students from these four sites were randomly selected for participation
using the university registration database (LADOK), and a response rate of 70.0% was
achieved.
This study focuses on student alcohol and other drug use, problems experienced as a result of
alcohol/drug use, attitude towards use, and policies for the control of drug use. In doing so, it
provides details about the use and context of drug use within the university environment.
Although the results of this study are not generalizable to all universities across Sweden, they
can ultimately assist in the development of programs and policies for prevention and
treatment.
Prevalence of Drug Use
•
27.1% of the students had used an illicit drug at some point in their lives, this figure
decreases to 9.8% in the 12 months prior to the survey, and 4.5% during the first few
months of the fall 2003 school term. These figures do not include the use of prescription
drugs irrespective of physician prescription.
•
A higher percentage of the students reported using drugs, if prescription drug abuse was
included in the definition. Such use of prescription drugs was to be recorded only if they
were taken outside of a doctor’s orders, and not precisely as prescribed. 15.4% of the
students reported using prescription drugs in this manner during their lives, 9.1% within
the last 12 months, and 6.9% during the school term. Thus raising total drug use
prevalence to 36% lifetime, 17.3% 12 month, and 10.8% during the term.
•
Cannabis was the most commonly reported drug at 25.3% use during the lifetime, 8.9%
during the prior 12 months, and 3.2% during the term. Amphetamines were the second
most frequently used drug, at 4.1%, 0.8% and 0.3% respectively; followed by ecstasy at
3.2%, 0.9% and 0.3% respectively.
•
Few students were regular consumers of drugs, data suggest that the large majority have
only experimented lightly. Of the students who had tried cannabis, 35% had used it only
1-2 times, and 73.6 % had used it 10 or fewer times, in total. Similarly, 45% of students
who had tried amphetamines or ecstasy had used them only 1 or 2 times; 73% of
amphetamine users and 76% of ecstasy users used them up to 10 times.
•
There was variation in the prevalence of illicit drug use by university. Students at Lund
were more likely to use cannabis, amphetamines and ecstasy than were students at any of
the other sites. Students at Kalmar were the least likely to have tried cannabis.
1
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
•
Males and students aged 20-24 reported higher rates of use of all drugs, and cannabis in
particular. During the prior 12 months, 12.2% of males used cannabis compared with
6.9% of females (use of any drug except prescription drugs: males 13.4% and females
7,6%).
•
Females reported higher rates of prescription drug use than males. 10.6% of females
reported prescription drug use in the prior 12 months compared with 7.3% of males.
•
Students studying Humanities, Social Sciences, Technology and Economics/business
reported the highest12-month rates of cannabis use.
•
Several school-related factors were associated with increased rates of all drug use and
cannabis use in particular. Compared with the 8.9% average rate of 12-month cannabis
use, higher rates of use were reported by students who lived with roommates (15.4%) or in
student corridors (14.9%); students whose primary income was via student loan (10.3%);
students taking free-standing courses (10.7%) as opposed to being enrolled in a program;
and those who had completed 40 educational credits or less prior to the fall term (12.6%).
•
Students who had lived outside of the country just prior to beginning their current
education (23.9%) and those from the three largest cities in Sweden (11.7%) also reported
higher rates of cannabis use in the 12 months prior to the study. In addition, students who
had been guest students outside of the country during their education reported more
current cannabis use (13.4%) than those who had not (7.8%); however, only 17.1% of the
students who had been guest students elsewhere indicated that they had first tried drugs
while abroad studying.
•
17% of students who had tried drugs had experienced harm related to their use in the past
12 months. This represents less than 2% of students overall. Further, 2.1% of students
reported being a passenger in a car where the driver was known to be under the influence
of an illicit drug, while just under 1% of students who had access to a car had driven under
the influence of a drug (not including alcohol) during the school term in progress.
Non-use of Drugs
•
64% of students had not tried illicit drugs even once. This number increases to 72.9% if
prescription drugs are not included in the estimate. 16.5% (of the 72.9%) of those that had
not tried drugs indicated that they had a desire to experiment with one or more drugs.
Students who had close family members or friends who had used drugs were half as likely
(13.3%) as those without (26%) to want to experiment.
•
The top 5 reasons endorsed by for remaining drug free were: drugs aren’t good for your
health (94.5%); one can become addicted (93.6%); I just don’t want to (92.4%); one could
die (91.3%); and I don’t like how they influence one’s behaviour (82.2).
2
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Alcohol Consumption and Patterns of Use
•
96% of students had consumed alcohol in the 12 months prior to completing the survey;
92.7% had consumed it since the beginning of the school term. In total, only 1.8% had
been life-long abstainers.
•
33% of students reported binge drinking (drinking the equivalent of a bottle of wine at a
sitting) twice a month or more often. 55% had consumed this quantity at least once per
month.
•
Alcohol was consumed most frequently by students attending Lund, and least frequently
by students attending Umeå (75.2% versus 57% drank 2 or more times per month)
University.
•
Binge drinking at least twice monthly, was most common at Lund (38.4%) and Växjö
(37.0%) universities compared with Kalmar (32.2%) and Umeå (31.9%).
•
Students who binge drank at least 2 times per month were most likely to be male (46.8%
versus 28.9% for females); aged 20 to 24 years (42.4%); live with roommates (55.0%), in
a student corridor (49.4%) or in their own apartment alone (41.9%); and have a higher
disposable income than those drank heavily less often. These heavy drinkers were also
more likely to have lived one of Stockholm, Göteborg or Malmö prior to attending school
(45.4%). Students enrolled in economics/business (51.2%), technology (42.4%), law
(42.1%), and the social sciences (40.6%) were the most likely to binge drink at least twice
a month. Binge drinkers also reported having more confidants (a higher level of social
support) than non-binge drinkers.
•
43% of current drinkers had experienced harm related to its use in the past 12 months.
This represents 41.5% of all students surveyed. The most commonly reported harms were
related to the student’s physical health (26.3%) and financial situation (25.7%).
•
4.3% of students reported being a passenger in a car where the driver was known to be
under the influence of alcohol, and 1.5% of students who had access to a car during the
fall 2003 term had driven under the influence alcohol during that time.
Attitudes towards Alcohol and Drug Use
•
Student’s alcohol ranked first in a list when students were asked about potential problems
on the student’s own university campus. Vandalism or theft of property ranked second,
while student drug use ranked third. These were followed by sexual discrimination,
sexual harassment, racism, and physical violence.
•
66% agreed, or strongly agreed, with the statement that alcohol is a larger problem in
Sweden than are other drugs.
•
75% of students felt that drinking alcohol was a normal part of being a university student;
in contrast to only 7% who agreed that trying drugs is a normal part of life as a university
student. More students at Lund felt that trying drugs was a normal part of the university
students (10.4%), compared with the other sites (Kalmar 4.0%, Umeå 4.5%, Växjö 5.0%).
3
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
•
70% of students felt that if it became permissible to use drugs, there would be a large
increase in their use. This finding was in contrast with the large number of non-drug users
who indicated that they had no desire to use drugs, largely for health reasons.
•
90% agreed that the misuse of prescription medicines can be as dangerous as misuse of
other drugs. This percent did not differ vary depending upon whether the student reported
misuse of prescription medications or not.
Policy
•
88.2% of students indicated that they did not know if their university had a policy on
alcohol use. Similarly 90.9% did not know if there was a policy regarding illicit drug use.
•
27% of students felt that the university administration should be doing more to control
students’ drug use. Students who had not tried drugs felt significantly stronger about this
(30.4%) than students who had previously tried drugs (14.7%).
•
Students where asked their opinion of what the University’s response to drug use on
campus should be. For a first offence of using cannabis on campus, students felt that the
University should see that the individual receives counselling (66.8%), and 31% felt that
the incident should be reported to the police. If the same person was caught a second
time, students’ support of counselling decreased to 62.4% and 48.8% felt the police should
bee called. However if an individual was caught selling cannabis on campus, students
felt that the individual should be reported to the police (84.8%), and expelled from school
(34.8%).
•
Students who had tried drugs were more likely to indicate that the Swedish laws for drug
use were too harsh (16.4%) compared with students who had not tried drugs (3.2%);
however, a large proportion of students in each group (38.5% and 37.5% respectively) had
no opinion on the matter.
4
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Sammanfattning på Svenska
I denna rapport presenteras resultat från en undersökning om Alkohol, droger och studentliv
(ADSL), som genomfördes under hösten 2003. Materialet omfattar svar från 4575
universitetsstudenter som läste på grundnivå vid fyra svenska universitet: Högskolan i
Kalmar, Lunds universitet, Umeå universitet och Växjö universitet. Deltagarna från dessa fyra
städer hade blivit slumpmässigt utvalda med hjälp av skolornas databaser (LADOK) och
svarsfrekvensen blev 70,0 procent.
Studien fokuserar på studenternas bruk av alkohol och droger, problem upplevda som reslutat
av detta bruk, attityder till bruket och kontrollåtgärder riktade mot bruket. På detta sätt ger den
detaljerad information om kontext av drogbruket i universitetsmiljön. Även om resultaten inte
kan generaliseras till alla svenska universitet, de kan ge underlag för utveckling av preventiva
program och åtgärder samt behandling.
Förekomst av drogbruk
•
27,1 procent av studenterna hade testat någon otillåten drog vid något tillfälle under sin
livstid. Siffran sjunker till 9,8 procent när det gäller de senaste 12 månaderna före
undersökningen och till 4,5 procent under de första månaderna av höstterminen 2003.
Uppgifterna omfattar inte bruk av receptbelagda läkemedel, oavsett om de var utskrivna
av en läkare eller ej.
•
En högre andel studenter uppgav drogbruk när receptbelagda läkemedel inkluderades i
definitionen. Sådant bruk registrerades endast om dessa läkemedel användes utan
läkarrecept eller på annat sätt än ordinerat av läkare. 15,4 procent av studenterna
rapporterade sådant bruk av receptbelagda läkemedel under sin livstid, 9,1 procent under
de senaste 12 månaderna och 6,9 procent under terminens gång. Det innebär en total
förekomst av drogbruk bland 36 procent av studenterna under deras livstid, 17,3 procent
under de senaste 12 månaderna och 10,8 procent under studieterminen.
•
Cannabis var den vanligaste drogen, rapporterad av 25,3 procent när det gäller bruket
under livstid, 8,9 procent under de senaste 12 månaderna och 3,2 procent under terminen.
Amfetamin var den näst vanligaste drogen, rapporterad av 4,1, 0,8 respektive 0,3 procent följd av ecstasy, motsvarande 3,2, 0,9 respektive 0,3 procent.
•
Få studenter använde droger regelbundet. Resultaten tyder på att en stor majoritet endast
har erfarenhet av experimentell användning. Bland de studenter som använt cannabis hade
35 procent gjort så endast en eller två gånger och 73,6 procent hade använt den totalt tio
eller mer sällan. På ett liknande sätt, 45 procent av de studenter som hade provat
amfetamin eller ecstasy hade gjort så endast 1 eller 2 gånger; 73 procent av dem som
använt amfetamin och 76 procent av dem som använt ecstasy hade gjort så högst tio
gånger.
•
Variation kunde observeras i förekomsten av illegala droger mellan olika universitet.
Studenterna i Lund använde cannabis, amfetamin och ecstasy oftare än studenter från de
övriga universiteten. Bruket av cannabis var lägst i Kalmar.
5
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
•
Män och studenter i åldrar 20-24 år uppgav högsta andelar när det gäller bruk av samtliga
droger, i synnerhet bruk av cannabis. Under de senaste 12 månaderna hade 12,2 procent
män provat cannabis jämfört med 6,9 procent bland kvinnor (bruk av samtliga droger
förutom receptbelagda läkemedel: 13,4 procent bland män och 7,6 procent bland kvinnor).
•
Fler kvinnor än män rapporterade bruk av receptbelagda läkemedel. Andelen gällande de
senaste 12 månaderna var 10,6 procent jämfört med 7,3 procent bland män.
•
Studenter som läste humaniora, samhällsvetenskap, teknologi och
ekonomi/marknadsföring uppvisade de högsta andelarna av cannabisbruk under de senaste
12 månaderna.
•
Ett flertal skolrelaterade faktorer visade sig ha samband med högre förekomst av allt
drogbruk, cannabis i synnerhet. Jämfört med den genomsnittliga andelen som provat
cannabis under de senaste 12 månaderna, 8,9 procent, har högre andelar rapporterats bland
dem som bodde tillsammans med rumskamrater (15,4 procent) eller i en studentkorridor
(14,9 procent). Motsvarande gällde studenter som fick sin huvudsakliga inkomst från
studielån (10,3 procent) samt studenter som läste fristående kurser (10,7 procent) jämfört
med dem som läste en linje. Andelen var också högre än genomsnitt bland dem som hade
nått högst 40 högskolepoäng innan höstterminen (12,6 procent).
•
Studenter som var bosatta utanför Sverige precis innan de påbörjade sin nuvarande
utbildning (23,9 procent) och de som kom från de tre största städerna i Sverige (11,7
procent) rapporterade också en högre förekomst av cannabisbruk under de senaste 12
månaderna. Också bland dem som under sin utbildning hade varit gäststudenter utanför
Sverige fanns det relativt fler som uppgav att de hade provat cannabis under de senaste 12
månaderna (13,4 procent) jämfört med de som inte studerat utomlands (7,8 procent).
Samtidigt rapporterade endast 17,1 procent bland dem som varit gäststudenter att de
provade droger för första gången under sina utlandsstudier.
•
17 procent bland de studenter som hade provat droger hade under de senaste 12
månaderna upplevt problem relaterat till drogbruket. Det motsvarar mindre än två procent
bland samtliga studenter. Vidare uppgav 2,1 procent att de hade färdats i en bil då de
visste att föraren vad drogpåverkad, medan knappt en procent bland studenter med tillgång
till en bil rapporterade att de själva hade kört under drogpåverkan (omfattar inte alkohol)
under den pågående terminen.
Icke-bruk av droger
•
64 procent av studenterna hade inte provat illegala droger ens en gång. Siffran ökar till
72,9 procent när receptbelagda läkemedel inte ingår i skattningen. 16,5 procent bland de
som inte provat droger (d.v.s. de 72,9 procent) uttryckte att de någon gång hade haft lust
att pröva en eller fler droger. Studenter som hade nära anhöriga eller vänner som hade
använt droger var hälften så benägna (13,3 procent) att känt lust att prova jämfört med
övriga (26 procent).
6
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
•
De fem vanligaste orsakerna som angivits när det gällde att förbli drogfri var: droger är
inte bra för hälsan (94,5 procent), man kan bli beroende (93,6 procent), jag vill helt enkelt
inte (92,4 procent), man kan dö (91,3 procent) och jag gillar inte hur de påverkar ens
beteende (82,2 procent).
Alkoholkonsumtion och alkoholvanor
•
96 procent av studenterna hade konsumerat alkohol under de senaste 12 månaderna före
genomförandet av undersökningen. 92,7 procent hade konsumerat alkohol sedan början av
skolterminen. Totalt sett hade enbart 1,8 procent aldrig någonsin druckit alkohol.
•
33 procent av studenterna rapporterade intensivkonsumtion (binge drinking), d.v.s. att de
drack motsvarande en flaska vin vid ett och samma tillfälle, två gånger i månaden eller
oftare. 55 procent hade druckit motsvarande denna mängd minst en gång i månaden.
•
Alkohol konsumerades oftast av studenter vid Lunds universitet, och minst ofta av
studenter vid Umeå universitet (75,2 procent respektive 57 procent drack två gånger eller
oftare per månad).
•
Intensivkonsumtion minst två gånger per månad var mest vanligt vid Lunds (38,4 procent)
och Växjö universitet (37.0 procent), jämfört med Högskolan i Kalmar (32,2 procent) och
Umeå universitet (31,9 procent).
•
46,8 procent av männen respektive 28,9 procent av kvinnorna dricker motsvarande en
flaska vin vid ett konsumtionstillfälle minst två gånger per månad. Av de i åldern 20-24 år
har 42,4 procent uppgett intensivkonsumtion. 55 procent av dem som bor med
rumskamrater, 49.4 procent av dem som bor i studentkorridor, 41,9 procent av de som bor
ensamma i egen lägenhet har angett intensivkonsumtion. ”Intensivkonsumenterna” har
också en högre disponibel inkomst än de som dricker mer sällan. Intensivkonsumenterna
var också mer sannolika att ha bott i antingen Stockholm, Göteborg eller Malmö före sina
universitetsstudier (45,4 procent). Studenter som studerade ekonomi/marknadsföring (51,2
procent), teknologi (42,4 procent), juridik (42,1 procent) eller samhällsvetenskap (40,6
procent) var de som i högst utsträckning drack motsvarande en flaska vin vid ett
konsumtionstillfälle minst två gånger i månaden. Intensivkonsumenter hade fler personer
som de kunde anförtro sig till än övriga alkoholkonsumenter.
•
43 procent av alkoholkonsumenterna hade upplevt skador relaterade till
alkoholkonsumtion under de senaste 12 månaderna. De motsvarar 41,5 procent av alla
studenter i undersökningen. Den vanligaste skadan var relaterad till studentens fysiska
hälsa (26,3 procent) och finansiella situation (25,7 procent).
•
4.3 procent av studenterna rapporterade att de varit passagerare i en bil där de vetat att
föraren varit påverkad av alkohol och 1,5 procent av studenterna som hade tillgång till bil
under hösten 2003 hade kört under alkoholpåverkan under den tiden.
7
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Attityder till alkohol- och droganvändning
•
Respondenterna rangordnade studenters alkoholbruk högst när de tillfrågades om
potentiella problem på det egna universitetsområdet. Vandalism/stöld av egendom
rangordnades tvåa, därefter följde sexuell diskriminering, sexuella trakasserier, rasism och
(fysiskt) våld.
•
66 procent av studenterna instämde helt eller delvis i påståendet att alkohol är ett större
problem än andra droger i Sverige.
•
75 procent av studenterna ansåg att alkoholkonsumtion var ett normalt beteende för en
student vid ett universitet, i jämförelse med att enbart sju procent ansåg att prova droger
var normal upplevelse när man är student på universitetet. Fler studenter vid Lunds
universitet ansåg att prova droger var en normalt (10,4 procent) jämfört med de andra
skolorna (Kalmar 4,0 procent, Umeå 4,5 procent, Växjö 5,0 procent).
•
70 procent av studenterna ansåg att om det blev tillåtet att använda droger så skulle
användningen öka kraftigt. Detta resultat var i motsägelse till att de flesta studenter som
inte använde droger menade att de inte hade någon önskan att prova droger, främst p.g.a.
hälsoskäl.
•
90 procent instämde i att missbruk av receptbelagda läkemedel är kan vara lika farligt som
missbruk av andra droger. Denna siffra varierade inte beroende på om studenten
rapporterat eget bruk av receptbelagda läkemedel eller inte.
Policy
•
88,2 procent av studenterna svarade att de inte visste om deras universitet hade någon
policy gällande alkoholkonsumtion. 91 procent visste inte om det fanns någon policy
gällande otillåten droganvändning.
•
27 procent av studenterna ansåg att universitetsadministrationen borde göra mer för att
kontrollera studenternas droganvändning. Studenter som inte provat droger ansåg detta
signifikant mer (30,4 procent) än studenter som provat droger (14,7 procent).
•
Studenterna tillfrågades om hur de tyckte att skolan skulle agera i ett antal situationer
rörande droganvändning på universitetsområdet. För en förstagångsförseelse bestående av
användning av cannabis på universitetsområdet ansåg 66,8 procent av studenterna att
individen skulle få rådgivning och 31 procent ansåg att incidenten skulle rapporteras till
polisen. Om samma person ertappades en andra gång, så minskade studenternas stöd för
rådgivning till 62,4 procent och 48,8 procent ansåg att polisen skulle kontaktas. Om en
person ertappades med att sälja cannabis till en vuxen person på universitetsområdet,
ansåg studenterna att han eller hon skulle bli rapporterad till polisen (84,8 procent) och
avstängd från skolan (34,8 procent).
•
Studenter som hade provat droger var mer troliga att tycka att straffen för droganvändning
var för stränga (16,4 procent) jämfört med studenter som inte provat droger (16,4 procent).
Inom båda grupperna var det emellertid många studenter (38,5 respektive 37,5 procent)
som inte hade någon åsikt i frågan.
8
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
1. Introduction and Method
Background
Although there is a long history of national and student alcohol surveys in Sweden, there is
limited information available regarding illicit drug use and abuse among university students.
Information on the lifetime, 1-year, and 30-day prevalence of drug use by young adults has
been measured (Guttormsson, Andersson & Hibell, 2004), students included; however, there
have been no questions included which specifically address the campus environment, attitudes
and related use of drugs. Results from the 2003 young adult drug use study conducted by
Centralförbundet för alkohol- och narkotikauppylsning (CAN) have indicated that students
between 21-24 years of age reported a higher prevalence of drug use lifetime drug use (24%)
than did those the same age who were working (21%) (Guttormsson, Andersson & Hibell,
2004). Similarly current drug use (within the 12 months prior to study) was also higher for
these students (11%) compared with similarly aged workers (5%). However, in both cases
individuals in this age group who neither worked nor attended schools had the highest lifetime
(29%) and 12-month (13%) prevalence of narcotic use. These figures suggest that narcotic use
among university students is an issue in need of further study.
The Alcohol, Drugs and Student Life Survey (ADSL) was designed to address the absence of
University-specific issues related to drug use and its relation to alcohol consumption by
current undergraduate university students. The survey provides us with information about
rates and patterns of alcohol and other drug consumption, alcohol and drug related problems
experienced, as well as students’ views about alcohol and drug use and how they relate to the
campus environment.
Objectives of the Study
The overriding goal of the study was to inform local development regarding drug prevention
and support. To meet this goal, this project had two primary objectives. The first was to
obtain accurate point estimates of current drug use (defined as use within the 12 months prior
to the study) and of lifetime drug use within University and Högskola in Sweden. The second
goal of the study was to examine how students use or have used drugs differ from those who
have not with respect to sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle choices (including alcohol
use), school-related variables, and drug-related attitudes and policies.
These data, although non-representative of Sweden’s entire university and college
environment, can provide some guidance for priority setting and program development in
individual universities or at the national level.
Methodology
Sample Design
The ADSL study employed a 2-stage selection of undergraduate students. Selection of the
universities and colleges to be involved in the study was non-representative and was
conducted by Mobilisering mot narkotika (Mob). Kalmar, Lund and Umeå were chosen for
participation as they were among the six “försökskommumer” that Mob was supporting in
9
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
collaboration with the Alcoholkommittén, whose objective it is to support the development of
evidence based and sustainable prevention at the local level. While Växjö was not among the
communities involved in the “försökskommumer” initiative, the Alcoholkommittén has been
active in doing work there. In choosing these sites, Mob also ensured that there was some
geographical representation from the different regions of the country and across
university/college size distribution.
In the second stage of selection, a number of students enrolled in level A-D courses at each of
the four sites were randomly chosen for participation by the local coordinators. Because of
the wide diversity across sites in the undergraduate courses offered, students were selected
randomly regardless of level of study, field or study and program involvement. All students,
whether enrolled in a specific program or in free-standing courses, were eligible for
participation. Random selection was completed using the student register (LADOK) in mid
October, once the information was updated to include the fall 2003 enrolment.
Minimal eligibility criteria were set for the selection of students for participation in order limit
bias to the sample. Students had to be enrolled in courses in levels A through D and guest
students were to be excluded, where possible, as it was unlikely that they would be able to
read and write in Swedish. Ultimately, after selection and the first mailing it became known
that we had inadvertently selected a number of students who were guest students at other
universities during the fall 2003 term. Where this was known the student was also excluded
from the sample, as his/her responses to the questions would not be reflective of current
enrolment in the university/college in question.
The number of students selected for participation in the study was calculated separately for
each site. This was done to ensure that there was a large enough sample in each of the sites to
be able to provide accurate point prevalence estimates for one year and lifetime drug use and
allow the results to be interpreted with some degree of certainty. At the same time it was
necessary to recognize that the number of students attending the universities and colleges
diverged widely and that drawing large samples within small universities would require a
disproportionate amount of local coordination. The minimum number of completed, returned
questionnaires desired from each location was 500, for larger universities this number was
increased to provide completed returned questionnaires representing 5% of the undergraduate
student body. In order to ensure that we achieved these numbers, the smallest number of
students to be selected was 758, and the largest was 2895. An over sample was chosen, from
the three larges sites, in order to involve a greater number of current drug users in the study in
order to provide a high level of confidence in describing the patterns of use and attitudes of
drug using students.
Each site provided a local contact person who was responsible for development of sitespecific questions, reviewing study materials specific to their site, selecting the sample,
tracking student participation and providing a liaison with the study office at Stockholm
University. Contacts varied by site, and included individuals from health services, student
unions/associations and administrative offices.
Data Collection
Data collection was conducted using a postal survey. This design was chosen after
considering a number of alternatives including 1) self completion of survey within pseudorandomly selected classrooms; 2) telephone survey; 3) Internet-based self-completed survey;
4) face-to-face interviews; and 5) mail survey. In making this decision, the main
10
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
consideration was how to obtain a random sample from within each school so that the
estimates provided would be reliable and reproducible. In order to do this, not only should the
sample be random, but the response rate should be over 65% and be unbiased. LADOK
administration personnel indicated that the student-contact information was most complete for
address as opposed to telephone or e-mail; thus, face-to face interviewing and mail options
were preferred. Although response rate is usually highest in surveys using face-to-face
interviews (Mangione, 1995), it is not assured that this would be the case with this universitybased sample. Drug use is an illegal behaviour and students could fear expulsion from school
if it their use was discovered. Thus, they might be less likely to agree to be interviewed by
someone who is there on-behalf of the university as opposed to providing non-personally
identifying information via post. The costs of face-to-face interviews also proved to be
prohibitive. Thus a postal survey was chosen.
Mail Procedures
Studies have shown that mail surveys, if done well, can obtain as high a response rate as
telephone or face-to-face interview techniques (Edwards et al., 2002; Mangione, 1995;
Trinkoff & Storr, 1997). Some of the techniques that this study used to optimize the response
rate included:
1) Coordinating university – The study was directed by researchers located at Stockholm
University, which was not one of the four participating sites. All completed questionnaires
were sent directly to Stockholm University, whereas, the names of students sampled to
participate were only handled by the universities/college. As a result, anonymity of response
was guaranteed as names and responses could NOT be matched.
2) Repeat mailings – There were four study mailings, each approximately 2 weeks apart.
When possible, mailings occurred midweek so that materials would be received just in
advance of the weekend; however, this was not always possible in each location. The first
and third mailings included full-packets of material, the second and fourth consisted of a
reminder postcard (see Appendix A). The full packet included an introductory letter on
university/college letterhead, a questionnaire, a business reply (svarspost) envelope and a
response card.
3) Response card – The student was directed to send their completed survey, which had
neither identifying features nor an identification number directly to Stockholm University in
the envelope provided. At the same time, if they wanted to be eligible for a draw for prizes
respondents could choose to send their response card to their home university. The response
card identified the person, and by sending it in, the student indicated that they had taken part
and thus would be sent no additional reminders about the study. However, the introductory
letter indicated that it was not possible for either Stockholm University nor their home
university to link response cards and the completed surveys together, thus maintaining
anonymity of response and allowing the researchers to save money on printing, postage and
allowing the individual to be included in a draw for prizes. A sample response card can be
seen in Appendix A.
4) Incentives – The study included incentives for participation. Due to the prohibitive cost of
providing pre-paid gifts to each of the 6539 students selected for participation, it was
determined that there should be a draw for prizes. Each of the four sites gave away a first
prize of a gift certificate for a bicycle valued at 5000:- SEK. Second prize was a movie
11
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
theater ticket. The number of tickets given away per site was dependent upon the sample size.
Tickets were sent to 5% of the respondents who returned their response card to their home
university (Lund 95, Umeå 60, Växjö 35, Kalmar 25). While it is possible that someone who
sent in a response card did not actually complete the questionnaire, this is remote, as in the
literature (Mangione, 1995, Trinkoff & Storr, 1997) as well as in this case fewer response
cards were received than completed questionnaires, as some students preferred not to inform
their university regarding whether they had participated or not.
5) Endorsement by a recognized authority – The one-page introductory letter that was sent out
in the initial questionnaire packet was sent on professionally produced letterhead provided by
the university/college. This letter explained the purpose of the study and why it was
important for chosen students to participate, how names were selected, the function of the
response card, maintenance of anonymity and confidentiality, and provided contact
information for the Study Director at Stockholm University as well as a local coordinator in
most cases.
Participation Rate
One university that Mob initially approached was unwilling to participate in the study. The
remaining four participated. Given that this study had not intended to provide results that
were representative of the entire Swedish university/college population, there is no further
reference to the refusal by this site and how its exclusion might have changed the findings
reported herein.
Sites were initially asked to select a specific number of names for inclusion in the study. This
number was chosen to meet a minimum number of completed questionnaires (5% of students
or a minimum of 500), assuming a worst-case scenario of a 60% participation rate. In
particular the number of people selected from Lund was 2923, with an additional 1946 from
Umeå, 1077 from Växjö, and 769 from Kalmar. Of those selected, there were a small number
removed because they were found to be duplicates, students studying outside of their home
university or doctoral students. As seen in Table 1.1 the final net sample sizes were 2895,
1861, 1024 and 758 respectively. Table 1.2 shows the reasons for removing students from the
gross sample by study site. Since students were only removed from the gross sample if mail
was retuned via the post as undeliverable, or if students (or their families) made contact with
study personnel, the number of students classified as ineligible may be an underestimate.
The overall response rate was 70.0%, with similar response across sites. Table 1.1 shows the
actual response rate by site.
Completed questionnaires were sent into Stockholm University rapidly during the first 2
weeks, prior to the first reminder postcard. Within 14 days of the first mailing 72.6% of the
questionnaires that were ultimately received, had been received by researchers at Stockholm
University (50.8% of those sent out to the net sample). This rate of return was consistent
across sites; specifically by 14 days, Kalmar, Lund, Umeå and Växjö had returned 49.9%,
52.7%, 49.5% and 48.5% respectively. In all locations the rate of return diminished
appreciably with each reminder mailing (see Figure 1.1).
12
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 1.1
Response Rate
University / Högskola
Växjö
Umeå
Lund
Total
769
1038
1907
2923
6637
758
1024
1861
2896
6539
0
1
2
2
4
547
702
1304
2022
4575
72.1%
68.6%
70.1%
69.8%
70.0%
Kalmar
Gross Sample
Net Sample
1
Questionnaires returned that
were not included in the
analysis 2
Completed analysed
Questionnaires
Response Rate 1
The net sample excludes individuals who could not read/write Swedish, were out of the country during the data collection period, who had
no current address in the computer, known doctoral students and duplicates. The response rate is calculated as completed (non falsified)
questionnaires / net sample x 100.
2 Questionnaires that were clearly falsified, these are included in the net sample, but are not counted as completed in the response rate.
1
Table 1.2
Reasons for Removing Students From The Gross Sample
Reason for Removal
From Gross Sample
Kalmar
University / Högskola
Växjö
Umeå
Lund
Total
No correct address
8
13
41
24
86
Living out of the country
(guest student elsewhere)
2
1
1
2
6
Could not read/write in Swedish
1
0
0
1
2
No longer studying at the
university/college
0
0
2
0
2
Doctoral student
0
0
1
0
1
Duplicate selected
0
0
1
0
1
11
14
46
27
98
Total Removed from
Gross sample
Questionnaire Content
The questionnaire was developed to be relatively comparable with the national telephone
survey of young adults, aged 16 to 24, (Guttormsson, Andersson & Hibell, 2004), which was
conducted by telephone interview in the spring of 2003. However, this questionnaire asked
more in-depth questions with respect to drug use and its occurrence on college and university
campuses in Sweden. The questionnaire was developed primarily by researchers located at
Stockholm University; however, local coordinators did have opportunity to add to, or modify,
questions to suit the needs and interests of their site.
13
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
# Questionnaires
2000
1500
Lund
Umeå
Växjö
Kalmar
1000
500
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 14
Week #
Figure 1.1 Receipt of Questionnaires
Mail-out weeks: 0, 2, 4, 6
The questionnaire was pilot tested (except for site-dependent questions) at Stockholm
University using a convenience sample of undergraduate volunteers, and modifications were
made to several of the questions prior to their use in the main study.
The 20-page questionnaire was designed with nine sections. In order of appearance, the
sections included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background Information
Health and Lifestyle
Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Use
Questions for non-drug users
Sources of Information, Help and Support’
Perceptions of Drug Use in General
Attitudes
Policy
Site-specific Questions
Data Analysis
The purpose of this report is to provide a description of the alcohol and drug situation in the
four selected sites, both individually and in total. In order to accomplish this, estimates are
provided as simple percentages. The further description of those who have tried drugs, those
14
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
who use regularly and those who have never tried is conducted using bivariate crosstabulations and chi-square statistics. As this is a preliminary report only, there is limited use
of multivariate statistics, such analyses will be the focus of future manuscripts.
In limited instances, this report does comment on whether the differences seen between sites
are significantly different from one another. Where this is done, the data have been
standardized across site by age and gender. This was necessary because age and gender are
both strongly related to the use of alcohol and drugs and they also differed by study (see
chapter 2). The standardized percentages are not presented in this document, so as not to
confuse the reader.
One limitation of this study is that it was not possible to weight the data to ensure that the
estimates provides for each site are representative of all undergraduates in the university. It
was not possible to obtain accurate data from each site with respect to age, sex and program
enrolment in order to develop weights for all locations. With a 70% response rate there is a
potential for biased results. However, seeing as the drug use rates are as high or higher than
other studies have indicated in similarly aged populations, it is unlikely that we have
underestimated the prevalence of drug use substantially.
Core Measures Used in this Report
Each chapter in this report describes specific drug-related outcome measures, these measures
will be described more fully as they are discussed in detail. However, there issues relating to
question time frames and general terminology that are of importance throughout the entire
report and thus are outlined in more detail here.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use
The term ‘drug’ was used in the survey questionnaire, and is used in this report, to refer to the
consumption of any illegal or prescription drug, other than alcohol and tobacco, used in a
manner NOT as prescribed by a physician. Over the counter preparations were not to be
considered drugs, nor were prescription drugs that were taken as prescribed by a physician. A
detailed list of the types and classification of drugs of interest in this enquiry can be seen in
Table 1.3. This list was included in its entirety in the questionnaire inside back cover for easy
reference by survey participants when they were completing the questionnaire.
Drug use was measured in this study using three time frames in effort to allow comparisons to
be made with results from other studies. As a result, a number of other questions throughout
the survey have also been asked using similar time frames to ensure that analysis remains
meaningful. The three time frames that have been used are lifetime, last 12 months, and
during the current school term. The school term (fall 2003) was of importance as the
universities/colleges would certainly be interested in whether and how often drugs were being
used by students while students were in attendance. However, given the fact that students
completed the questionnaire from two to four months into the fall school term (with more
respondents completing the survey earlier than later) the point estimates for this measure of
drug use can not be directly compared to the commonly asked time frame of use within the
past 90 days.
15
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 1.3
Classification of Tobacco, Alcohol and Other Drugs
A
B
Catagory
Tobacco
Alcohol
C
Cannabis
D
Amphetamines
E
F
G
Ecstasy
Rohypnol
Heroin
H
GHB
I
Cocaine
J
Other central nervous
system (CNS) stimulants
K
Hallucinogenic mushrooms
L
Pain killers
M
Sedatives, and
tranquilizers
N
Anti-depressants
O
Other hallucinogens
P
Q
crack
Steroids (doping)
R
Other drugs
list
Cigarettes, cigarillos, cigars, pipes, snus and chewing tobacco
Light beer (folköl) , medium and strong beer, spirits, wine, cider
snaps, brännvin and alcopops
Hash, hash oil, marijuana, afgan, cannabis, grass, marock, pot,
weed
Benzedrine (bennies), dexedrine, methamphetamines, speed,
tjack
Ecstasy, Extacy, X, E, MDMA, PMMA,
Rohypnol
“Chasing the dragon”, fentanyl aka / ”China white”, opium, smoke
heroin, white heroin
GBL, gamma-hydroxy-butyrate, gobbe, liquid ecstasy, pro-G,
scoop, easy lay
Snow
* do not include crack or ”free base” cocaine
Betelnöt, Crystal meth (ice), fenmetrazine, fenmetralin, kat, khat,
metyfendiat, ritalin
* do not include amphetamines, cocaine or crack
Only hallucinogenic mushrooms, magic mushrooms
Citodon, codine, darvocet darvon, dilaudid, distalgesic,
fortalgesic, hydrocodone, ketobemidon, ketogan, moraphine,
oxycontin, percocet/percodan, petidin, råopium, treo comp,
vicodin/lortab/lorcet , m.m.
* do not include methadone, buprenorfin or subutex
Alopam, alpralid, apodorm, benzodiazapines (bens), dormicum,
diazepam, dumozolam, flunitrazepam, halcion, librium, mogadon,
nitrazepam, oxazepam, serepax, sobril, stesolid, stilnoct, temesta,
triazolam, valium, m.m.
* inkluderar inte GHB eller rohypnol
Prozac, paxil, zoloft
Acid, angel dust, DMT, LSD, meskalin, PCB, peyote, psilocybin,
trip, ketamin
* inkluderar inte ecstasy eller svampar
“Free base” cocaine
Anabolic steroids, testosterone, growth hormone
other illegal drugs not already included above, sniffing
preparations (e.g., gas, paint thinner, etc.), methadone,
buprenorfin or subutex, etc.
Missing Data
Overall, item non-response was low. In particular, only 16 people (0.35%) did not answer the
drug use questions.
16
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
The questions that received the highest rate of non-response were place of birth, mothers place
of birth and fathers place of birth. These questions were left blank in 26.6% of the completed
questionnaires. It is believed that a particularity in the formatting of the questionnaire caused
this question to be left blank in the majority of the cases, rather than the students withholding
information. In the pilot test, these questions were answered by 100% of the volunteer
respondents, even though not all were born in Sweden with Swedish heritage. The format of
the questionnaire did change slightly between the pilot test and the main study, causing some
questions to shift in their location on the page. The changes left these three questions on the
right hand column of the page, a column that did not continue all of the way down to the
bottom of the page. Thus, if a respondent were following down the left hand side of the page,
and not reading the questions numbers, these questions could be easily missed.
The questions with the second highest level of missing data were those in the sources of
information, help and support section. Almost all of the 10.2% of the participants who left
this section blank were individuals who had never tried drugs (433/466 people). It is likely
that they suspected that this section did not apply to them, although there were no directions
to this effect specifically stated in the instructions.
The final question area with a high rate of non-response was postal code. This was missing
among 4.9% of participants. Some individuals wrote in their questionnaire that they felt that
this information was too identifying for them to provide, others just left the space blank,
presumably for the same reason.
17
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
2. Sample Characteristics
This chapter provides basic background information on the students who agreed to participate
in the study. This information is broken down into four main areas: age and sex, living
situation while growing up, current social status and current educational situation
Age and Sex Distribution of the Students
Age and sex are typically both strongly related to both alcohol and drug use. The age and sex
composition of this sample can be seen in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Age and Sex of the Study Sample, by Site
Characteristic
University / Högskola
Umeå
Lund
n=1304
n=2022
%
%
Kalmar
n=547
%
Växjö
n=702
%
Sex
Male
Female
31.4
68.6
39.0
61.0
39.9
60.1
39.4
60.6
38.5
61.5
Age group
16 – 19
20 – 24
25 – 29
30 – 34
35 and older
3.7
54.2
18.7
7.5
15.9
0.9
55.6
18.1
18.4
7.0
0.6
58.0
33.9
6.0
1.5
5.3
56.9
21.7
6.5
9.6
3.1
56.7
24.2
8.3
7.7
Sex and age
Male 16 – 19
Male 20 – 24
Male 25 – 29
Male 30 – 34
Male 35 and older
Female 16 – 19
Female 20 – 24
Female 25 – 29
Female 30 – 34
Female 35 and older
0.7
16.3
9.2
2.0
3.1
3.0
37.9
9.6
5.4
12.8
0.3
20.8
8.7
7.3
1.9
0.6
34.8
9.4
11.1
5.1
0.2
21.5
15.7
2.2
0.5
0.4
36.5
18.0
3.9
1.1
1.6
24.0
9.8
1.9
2.4
3.7
33.1
11.9
4.5
7.1
0.9
21.9
11.2
2.8
1.9
2.2
34.9
13.0
5.5
5.7
Total
n=4575
%
The sample from Kalmar contained a higher proportion of females than the samples from the
other sites (p=0.0038). The sample from Umeå was comprised of the youngest students
(p<0.0431), with Lund, Växjö and Kalmar each progressively older. As a result of these
differences in such fundamental demographic variables, when comparisons are made in this
report between sites and with respect to alcohol and drug use, the statistics from age and sex
standardized comparisons are reported.
Although we cannot determine whether this age/sex composition is substantially different
from that in each of the participating universities, data from Statistika centralbyrån (SCB) in
Sweden documents that more females than males are currently, and have recently been,
enrolled in Swedish universities (SCB 2003; SCB, 2004a; SCB 2004b). That said, it is likely
18
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
that we still we have an over-representation of women, the size of which we are unable to
estimate.
Living Situation Prior to Age 18
The circumstances of an individual’s growth and development, in particular the stability of the
family environment, have been linked to the likelihood of early initiation into alcohol
consumption and to the use of drugs. This study was limited, by space, in terms of the
number of questions that could be asked about participant’s childhood and thus focused on
four areas of interest:
•
•
•
•
Parental presence in the home prior to the age of 18
Level of involvement with parents, if parents were living separately
Special living circumstances prior to the age of 18
Ethnicity (country of birth and parents’ birth countries)
Table 2.2 outlines the living situation of participants, before they reached the age of 18.
Roughly 80% of participants lived with both parents while they were growing up. Another
11% lived primarily with one parent but reported seeing (or living with) the other parent often
or always during that time. Another 6% lived with one but reported that they saw (or lived
with) the other parent only sometimes or not at all. The number of people who reported that
they had little or no stability wile growing up—by indicating that they did not have even one
parent that they lived with often or always—was very low at 0.5%. These figures were stable
cross study sites.
Students also were asked whether they had lived in a number of “special” circumstances
outside of the traditional family situation while growing up. A small percentage of students
(5.1%) indicated that they had lived in one or more of these situations prior to the age of 18.
The most common of these special circumstances were 1) living on one’s own or with
roommate without a guardian present (2.5%); 2) living with other relatives (2.2%); 3)
staying at an internatskola (0.5%); 4) living in a foster home (0.5%); and 5) living in a care,
treatment or detention facility (0.1%). A further 1.0% indicated that they lived away from
parents in some other type of setting.
Students at Umeå were most likely to have lived in special circumstances (p=0.0060, and least
likely to have lived with both parents (p=0.0140), using age-sex standardized data. Students
from Lund were the least likely to have lived in special circumstances (p=0.0060).
Students’ country of birth was missing in 26.6% of the completed questionnaires, thus it is
impossible to report the ethnic background of the respondents with any degree of accuracy.
However, 91.5% of those who did respond to the question reported being born in Sweden.
Similarly, of those reporting their parents’ countries of birth, 80.6% reported having both
parents born in Sweden, and an additional 8.7% indicated that one of their parents was born
within Sweden. These figures are not substantially different that which would be expected for
university students in Sweden on the whole (SCB 2001). Once standardized, students from
Växjö and Lund were slightly more likely to have parents born outside of Sweden (p=0.0326).
19
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 2.2
Living Situation of the Study Sample Prior to Age 18, by Site
Living Situation
University / Högskola
Umeå
Lund
n=1304
n=2022
%
%
Kalmar
n=547
%
Växjö
n=702
%
78.3
11.5
81.3
9.8
79.0
12.4
79.7
11.0
79.6
11.3
7.1
5.8
5.8
6.2
6.1
1.7
0.7
0.7
1.9
0.3
0.9
1.2
0.6
1.0
1.3
0.3
1.5
1.4
0.5
1.1
5.7
4.8
6.6
4.6
5.1
Place of birth
Sweden
Other Nordic country
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Middle east
Asia
Oceania
North America
South America
Africa
missing 2
68.0
0.7
1.3
1.4
0.2
1.8
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.0
25.8
62.2
0.7
1.3
1.9
0.3
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
31.8
70.4
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.6
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.1
25.1
66.6
1.1
1.1
2.3
0.6
1.2
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.2
25.8
67.2
1.0
1.0
1.4
0.5
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.1
26.6
Parents place of birth
Both in Sweden
One in Sweden
Neither in Sweden
Don’t know
missing 2
60.7
5.8
6.8
0.6
26.1
56.5
3.7
8.0
0.0
31.8
63.0
6.9
4.8
0.1
25.2
57.4
7.2
9.4
0.1
25.9
59.2
6.4
7.6
0.2
26.6
Parental living situation,
prior to the age of 18
Lived with both parents
Lived with one, saw other
often or always
Lived with one, saw other
irregularly or not at all
Adopted
No or little stability
Missing
Lived in special circumstances 1
Yes
Total
n=4575
%
1 Special Circumstances include ever having lived in any of the following places prior to the age of 18: relatives other than parents or
adoptive parents, foster home, boarding school, treatment or other care institution, jail, or living on one’s own, with or without a roommate.
2 These questions were left blank by 26.6% of respondents. A peculiarity in the format of the questionnaire suggests that these questions
were omitted primarily by accident rather than as a result of respondents refusing to answer them.
Students who were born outside of Sweden were most likely to come from outside of the
Nordic countries. Of those who answered the ethnicity questions, the top five answers
indicated that 2.0% were born in Eastern European countries, 1.8% were born in Asia, 1.4%
in Western European countries, 1.4% in other Nordic countries, and 0.8% in South America.
Current Social Status
Information on the students’ current social and economic status is located in Table 2.3.
Approximately 30% of students lived alone in their own apartments. The next most common
20
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
living situation was with a partner and no children (26.6%) followed by living with both a
partner and child(ren) (16.7%). Living in a student corridor was common (13.2%); however,
it was also one of the forms of living that varied the most by site. Where corridor living was
more common (e.g., Umeå) students were less likely to have their own apartment, thus it is
likely highly dependent upon the quantity and type(s) of student housing offered by the
university/college. Students at Lund and Umeå were less likely than those at Kalmar and
Växjö to live with children, even after standardization by age and sex (p<0.0001).
Table 2.3
Current Student Social Status, by Site
Characteristic
Current living situation
Alone – apartment
Student corridor
With roommates
With parents
Partner and children
Partner and NO children
Children and NO partner
Other
Main form of income
Student loan
Work
Loan and work
Stipend
Parents
Other
Monthly disposable income
0 – 499 SEK
500 – 999
1000 – 1499
1500 – 1999
2000 – 2999
3000 or more
Where lived before starting at
current university
In city where school is located
Stockholm
Malmö / Lund
Göteborg
Other large city (>90,000)
Small city (27,000 – 89,999)
Town (<27,000)
Farm
Outside of Sweden
University / Högskola
Umeå
Lund
n=1304
n=2022
%
%
Kalmar
n=547
%
Växjö
n=702
%
24.9
13.2
3.9
8.2
16.7
26.2
2.9
4.0
36.9
11.3
3.9
6.3
13.5
24.5
1.3
2.3
24.9
22.2
12.5
3.1
5.4
29.2
0.5
2.2
29.1
21.1
8.3
11.1
7.8
18.9
1.1
2.6
29.9
13.2
3.8
8.2
16.7
26.2
2.9
4.0
69.8
12.8
3.9
0.0
7.1
6.4
73.5
12.0
3.3
0.0
6.6
4.6
82.5
6.1
2.2
0.5
4.1
4.6
72.9
9.0
2.3
0.5
9.0
6.3
75.3
9.1
2.6
0.4
7.0
5.6
19.1
27.2
18.9
15.2
10.3
9.3
13.8
28.0
22.6
13.0
12.5
10.1
13.5
22.0
21.7
18.4
14.6
9.8
13.6
22.8
23.3
15.0
14.5
10.8
14.2
23.9
22.2
15.7
13.7
10.3
35.8
6.6
0.7
2.6
5.7
18.1
15.4
13.5
1.6
30.8
4.3
2.3
4.0
8.0
18.4
15.1
15.0
2.1
24.5
6.8
0.9
3.6
9.5
23.8
13.7
12.7
4.5
37.2
5.6
-3.5
9.8
16.7
12.2
11.6
3.4
29.3
5.8
3.6
3.5
9.0
19.2
13.5
12.7
3.4
Total
n=4575
%
A large majority of the students obtained their monthly incomes via student loan (75.3%).
After age-sex standardization, students from Umeå were more likely to obtain funds this way,
and those from Kalmar and Växjö were more likely to obtain their income through
employment (p<0.0001).
21
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Disposable income was not large for these students. Over 50% reported a monthly disposable
income of less than 1500 SEK after monthly necessities were paid for. The level is relatively
consistent across sites; however, students at Kalmar do have slightly less to spend (p=0.0276).
Students who attended Umeå University were less likely to have lived in the city before
beginning their education there (24.5%) compared with 30.8% and higher at the other sites.
However, over 60% of the students relocate or travel distances for their education in each site
and therefore issues related to student relocation and adjustment are an important
consideration for all sites.
Students were also asked whether they were working at the same time as they were attending
courses (not seen in Table 2.3). The majority did not work during the school term (66.0%);
however, 4.2% did indicate that they worked full-time, and 29.8 indicated that they worked
part-time in addition to their studies. Even after standardizing by age and sex, students at
Kalmar and Växjö were the most likely to work full-time, and those at Umeå were the least
likely to work and study simultaneously (p<0.0001).
Students’ Current Educational Situation
Students were asked a number of questions regarding their College/University education, the
results of these questions can be seen in Table 2.4. Most students (75.8%) indicated that they
were enrolled in a program of study at the time of the survey. This differed by site, with
students at Umeå being most likely to be enrolled in a program and those at Lund to be the
least likely (p<0.0001). In addition to being most likely to be enrolled in a specific program
of study, Umeå students were also more likely than those at other sites to indicate that they
were studying to write a particular exam (p<0.0001).
The areas of study indicated by the students varied widely by site, as expected. Overall, the
three most common fields of study were technology, economics/marketing (business) and
social science. Table 2.4 shows how the areas of study differ by site.
Students were asked about how many points they had completed prior to the current term of
study (fall 2003). They were asked about this in 2 ways, how many points they had
completed at their university/college, and how many points they had completed overall, at any
university/college. These answers to these questions provide an overview of how long the
student has been studying. A small percentage of the students (15.5%) had never received any
points prior to answering the survey. A slightly higher percentage (21.4%) had not received
any points from their current school. Overall, the students who responded to the survey from
Kalmar and Växjö were earlier in their academic careers than students at Umeå and Lund,
even though students at Kalmar were older than those at the other sites. Unfortunately,
students were not asked two additional questions of interest: 1) what level they were currently
studying at (e.g., A, B, C or D) and 2) how many points had they accumulated that could
count towards the exam for which they were studying. Neither of questions about points
completed can be directly transformed to answer the latter two questions.
22
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 2.4
Educational Characteristics of the Sample by Site
Characteristic
Course of study
Program
Free-standing courses
Studying for an exam (degree)
Yes
Area of study
Economics/marketing
Health (including Medical)
Law
Humanities
Natural Sciences
Teaching
Police
Social Science
Social Work
Technology
Other
Academic points from current
school
0
1 – 40
41 – 80
81 or more
Total number of academic points
0
1 – 40
41 – 80
81 or more
Average status, last year
Godkänd or better
Under godkänd
Didn’t study last year
No response
Live in student region 1
High
Medium
Low/no
Missing 2
University / Högskola
Umeå
Lund
n=1304
n=2022
%
%
Kalmar
n=547
%
Växjö
n=702
%
79.1
20.9
75.5
24.5
85.1
14.8
69.1
30.9
75.8
24.2
79.1
77.8
87.8
81.6
82.4
19.9
7.9
0.0
7.4
14.1
19.1
0.0
6.3
4.2
9.6
11.4
19.9
4.2
0.0
10.8
2.2
20.5
4.9
18.7
3.7
9.0
6.0
9.3
17.8
2.3
7.4
11.8
14.1
2.3
12.4
4.9
11.2
6.5
12.6
10.0
6.0
14.5
9.7
1.7
0.0
11.9
5.4
21.3
7.0
13.7
11.1
3.3
11.0
9.7
10.2
1.4
12.4
4.9
15.1
7.2
28.2
25.9
18.8
27.1
24.2
27.5
22.9
25.4
15.1
23.7
23.2
38.0
22.8
23.9
17.4
35.9
21.4
24.6
20.1
22.9
20.1
23.5
20.3
36.1
17.4
26.7
21.8
34.1
10.5
19.6
23.4
46.5
16.8
20.1
16.7
46.4
15.5
21.4
19.8
43.3
78.2
0.6
20.3
0.9
79.5
0.3
19.9
0.3
86.4
1.2
11.6
0.2
82.2
0.6
16.2
1.0
82.5
0.7
15.9
0.8
18.6
39.7
37.1
4.6
25.1
36.0
31.3
7.6
54.4
18.3
23.3
4.0
12.2
38.3
44.4
4.8
27.1
32.4
35.5
5.0
Total
n=4575
%
1 For the purpose of this study, a high-density student region, is defined as a post code reported by 40 or more students; a medium-density
student region has between 15 and 39 students from the study living in it.
2 The post code question was left blank likely in order for individuals to feel that their identity was preserved.
Different programs, faculties, and courses of study at the chosen sites have markedly different
traditions in how the students are graded for their achievements. In this survey, we asked
what the individual’s “average” grade was in their last year of study (including gymnasium
for students who were in their first year of University/college study). The response categories
provided were: 1) distinction or very good (väl godkänd eller mycket väl godkänd), 2)
acceptable (godkänd), 3) not acceptable (underkänd) and 4) I did not study at all last year.
Several participants circled acceptable (godkänd) and indicated that their program of study
23
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
offered no possibilities to receive higher grades, other individuals indicated that there program
of study gave no grade standing at all. Thus, in order to be as inclusive as possible the grades
were collapsed into pass, fail, didn’t study last year, and no response. Overwhelmingly, those
who had studied in the year prior to the survey administration received a passing grade. Each
site had a fail rate of 1% or lower.
The variable “live in a student region” was developed for this study to aid in the examination
of the relationship between student density and alcohol and drug use. It was created using the
postal code reported by the student. No response could be determined for the 4.9% of cases
where no postal code, or insufficient information, was provided. However, one could make
an assumption that in areas where there were known to be large numbers of students living
(e.g., student corridors or housing complexes) participants would be less likely to feel that
they could be identified by their postal code and thus more likely to provide the information in
the survey. Therefore those individuals who have provided insufficient information may be
assumed to live in medium or low student density areas. Postal codes that were reported by
80 or more survey participants were judged to represent a high-density student region.
Medium density was defined as 20 – 79 students living reporting the postal code. Low
density included any postal code that was reported 20 or fewer times in this survey. Using
this definition, 27% of the students in the survey lived a high student-density area, 31% lived
in medium and 35% live in low student density areas. This differed greatly by site (see Table
2.4). Substantially more Umeå students lived in high student-density areas than at any other
site, this was followed by Växjö, Kalmar and Lund respectively.
Students were asked to indicate whether they were full-time, half-time or quarter-time
students. The great majority indicated that they studies full-time (94.5%) followed by parttime (4.3%) and quarter-time (1.2%). This did not differ significantly by site.
Two percent of the students indicated that they were studying via distance education. They
were located at Kalmar (5.7%), Växjö (3.2%) Umeå 1.5%, and Lund (1.0%).
Participation In Activities at the University
Students were asked about their participation in various interest activities held both at and
away from the university. Figure 2.1 shows the participation rate for activities that occurred
on campus only. Students, in general were most likely to participate in party-type events
(pubs, raves/clubs, parties, and informally hang out with friends in cafes etc.). Extracurricular
academic events such as workshops and seminars were the second most common type of
event attended by students, followed closely by involvement in Nations and program or
associations, and finally athletic and other interest groups (e.g., canoe club, etc).
Involvement in university-located activities was relatively consistent across the study sites.
However, after age-sex standardization, participation in pubs/parties and athletics/hobbies
were most common at Växjö (p<0.000); participation in academic activities was most
common at Lund (p<0.0001); and involvement in nations and other associations was least
common at Umeå (p<0.0001).
Throughout the report, the background characteristics presented in this chapter will be
referred to in order to describe the students in the study sample with respect to their alcohol
and drug use.
24
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Percent
60
*
50
*
40
*
*
30
20
Kalmar
Växjö
Umeå
Lund
10
0
Pubs/Fests
Athletics
Academics
/Hobbies
Figure 2.1
Nations
/Associations
Participation in Activities on Campus
(current term)
* P<=0.0001
25
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
3. Prevalence of Alcohol and Tobacco Use
In this chapter we consider the use of legal mind-altering substances including alcohol and
tobacco.
Use of Tobacco Products
Participants were asked about their use of any tobacco products including cigarettes, snus,
cigars, cigarillos, and pipes. Due to space limitations in the questionnaire these items were
not asked about individually, therefore this report cannot differentiate between the two
primary forms of tobacco used in Sweden–cigarettes and snus.
Overall, current daily tobacco use was reported by 16.9% of participants (see Table 3.1). This
figure was consistent across sites after standardization by age and sex. Occasional use of
tobacco was reported by an additional 16.9% of participants; although, this prevalence was
not consistent across sites. Individuals from Växjö were most likely to use tobacco
occasionally and those attending Kalmer were the least likely to currently be occasional users
(p<0.0001). Lifetime use of tobacco was consistent across sites, with 30.7% indicating that at
some point in their lives they were daily users of tobacco. The mean age of initiation of daily
use was 16.7 years (SD=2.7). This occurred significantly earlier in Kalmar and Växjö than in
Umeå and Lund.
Table 3.1
Percentage of Students Reporting the Use of Tobacco1 Products, by Site (n=4571)
University / Högskola
Umeå
Lund
n=1304
n=2022
%
%
Kalmar
n=547
%
Växjö
n=702
%
Current use
Daily
Occasionally
17.4
13.2
16.9
19.1
17.6
16.6
16.3
17.4
16.9
16.9
Lifetime use
Daily
30.3
31.5
30.6
30.5
30.7
16.2 (2.5)
16.1 (2.5)
17.1 (2.9)
16.9 (2.6)
16.7 (2.7)
Mean age (sd) of initiation
of daily use
1
Total
n=4575
%
Tobacco use was defined as use of any of the following products: cigarettes, cigarillos, cigars, pipes and snus.
The use of tobacco by study participants has been examined in relation to a small number of
personal and educational characteristics including sex, age, current living situation, whether
the student was located in a high student-density area, enrolment into a program of study, and
the number of academic points completed at their present university. While not nearly
exhaustive of the personal and educational characteristics presented in Chapter 2, this
selection provides an overview of how smoking rates fluctuate with one’s age sex and one’s
educational situation.
26
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 3.2
Percentage of Students Reporting the Use of Tobacco1 Products, by Sex, Age and
Current Living Situation, and Number of Academic Points (n=4571)
Sex
Male
Female
Age group
16 – 19
20 – 24
25 – 29
30 – 34
35 and older
Current living situation
Alone – apartment
Student corridor
With roommates
With parents
Partner and children
Partner and NO children
Children and NO partner
Other
Live in a student region
High
Medium
Low/no
Course of study
Program
Free-standing courses
Academic points form current
school
0
1 – 40
41 – 80
81 or more
Current
Daily Use
****
23.4
12.8
****
11.3
15.2
19.5
18.3
20.4
***
20.1
14.7
21.2
7.7
20.8
13.9
23.5
23.3
*
14.6
16.9
17.9
Percent Reporting:
Current
Occasional Use
*
16.1
17.3
****
18.6
19.0
16.9
10.6
7.3
***
17.2
22.3
21.2
15.9
9.3
14.6
13.7
13.3
*
19.4
17.5
14.1
16.2
18.9
17.2
15.6
Lifetime
Daily Use
****
36.1
27.3
****
16.4
25.4
34.8
39.6
51.6
****
31.3
26.7
31.6
15.9
47.1
30.3
51.9
32.5
***
25.9
30.4
33.7
****
29.1
35.2
***
19.5
18.6
17.1
13.9
***
17.2
18.5
16.8
15.7
***
32.7
34.5
28.9
27.8
Tobacco use was defined as use of any of the following products: cigarettes, snus, cigars, cigarillos, and pipes.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
1
Male students (23.4%) were more likely than females (12.8%) to report current daily tobacco
use. This was also the case with the daily use of tobacco at some point within the student’s
lifetime, males were more likely to have used daily (36.1%) than were females (27.3%).
Females were, however, just as likely as males to use tobacco on an occasional basis.
The occurrence of current daily tobacco use increased with student age, whereas the
occurrence of current occasional tobacco use decreased with age. By adding the first two
columns of Table 3.2, it can be seen that the prevalence of current use of tobacco peaks in the
25 to 29 year age group, with 36.4% indicating that they were at least occasional users of
tobacco at the time of the study. Lifetime daily use was also related to age, with older
students reporting more daily use of than younger students.
Students living with their parents (7.7%) were the least likely to be daily users of tobacco,
whereas those living with children (23.5% with not partner, 20.8% with partner), alone in
27
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
their own apartments (20.1%) or with roommates (21.2%) were most likely to be daily users.
Similar trends were also seen with lifetime daily use. Students living with children were the
least likely to be occasional users of tobacco. Although the number of students that reported
living with a partner and no children is low (n=52) and the estimate is therefore not highly
reliable, there were 412 students who reported living with a partner and children, so the
strength of that estimate is strong enough to support increased daily use of tobacco amongst
students with children.
Students living in areas of high-student density were least likely to use tobacco daily (current
use: 14.6%, lifetime use 25.9%) and most likely to use it occasionally (19.4%) when
compared with those living in low student-density areas (17.9%, 33.7% and 14.1%
respectively.
Enrolment in an academic program was unrelated to current tobacco use patterns; however, it
was related to lifetime daily use. Students enrolled in a program were less likely to have used
tobacco daily during their lifetimes (29.1%) than those enrolled in free-standing courses only
(35.2%).
Progression in academics was also related to current and lifetime tobacco use. As the number
of points completed at the current university increased, the daily use of tobacco decreased. It
decreased from 19.5% for students with zero points, to 13.9% for students with 81 or more
points prior to the fall 2003 school term. The trend with occasional use can be seen to run in
the opposite direction. Lifetime tobacco use was most prevalent among students having
accumulated between one and 40 points prior to starting the term.
Alcohol Consumption and Drinking Patterns
Alcohol was consumed by an overwhelming majority of the students surveyed. Only 4% of
students had abstained from drinking alcohol completely in year prior to the survey, and just
over half of those (2.2%) had abstained throughout their entire lifetimes. Figure 3.1 shows at
what age students had taken their most recent drink, for those who had consumed alcohol in
the last year (n=4444). Almost a quarter of the students who were not abstainers (73.7%) had
consumed alcohol within the week prior to the study. Another 16.8% had a drink in the three
weeks prior to that, and another 2.2% since the term started. Therefore, a total of 92.7% of
drinkers (90.6% of all students) had consumed alcohol since the school term began.
When asked how often, on average, students consumed alcohol, the following results were
obtained (see Table 3.3). Ten percent of students drank two or more times per month, and a
further 56.6% drank between two and four times per month. This rate was highest in Lund
and lowest in Umeå (p<0.0001).
Drinking patterns involve dimensions such as the frequency of alcohol use, and the frequency
of heavy (binge) drinking, and beverage preference. Binge drinking has been defined as
consisting of drinking 5 or more drinks in one sitting (occasion). In terms of volume of
alcohol consumed, this equates to about 1-75cl bottle of while, or 5-6 (25 cl) shots of spirits,
or 4 cans of strong beer, or 6 cans of light beer. Fifty-five percent of student reported binge
drinking at least once a month. CAN identifies high-consumers of alcohol as those who drink
this quantity of alcohol at least two times pre month or more frequently. According to this
28
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
definition 35.6% of this student sample are high consumers. Once standardized by age and
sex, students at Växjö (37.0%) and Lund (38.4%) report higher levels of binge drinking than
either of the other two sites (Kalmar 32.2%, Umeå 31.9%) (p<0.0001).
%
2,2 %3,3
16,8 %
in the last week
in the last month
since the term started
in the last year
73,7 %
Figure 3.1.
How recently did students have their last drink?
N=4444
Using a second measure of binge drinking from the literature, which is more conservative than
the CANs twice a month estimate, we see that 55% of students are drinking 5 or more drinks
per occasion at least once a month. Once again, using this measure more students at Lund and
Växjö are drinking heavily at least once a month (p<0.0004).
A final estimate of potentially harmful drinking patterns is the ratio of the number of times a
person binge drinks to the number of times the person reports drinking. A higher proportion
(closer to 1) indicates that a person’s drinking frequently leads to heavy drinking, a lower
proportion (closer to 0) indicates that the individual rarely drinks more than 5 drinks on an
occasion. A ratio of 0.65 would indicate that 65% of the individual’s drinking occasions
involved drinking 5 or more drinks.
In the last row of Table 3.3 we can see that when drinking, the students from Umeå were more
likely to drink heavily, and those from Lund were least likely to drink heavily. However,
once standardized by age and sex, the only site that stands out from the rest is Lund
(p<0.001). The prevalence of heavy drinking is highest at Lund, but because the prevalence
of drinking (in any amount, large or small) is also highest their binge-to-drinking ratio is not
raised as high as we see at the other sites.
29
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 3.3
Frequency of Alcohol Consumption and Binge Drinking by Site (n=4537)
Alcohol Consumption
University / Högskola
Umeå
Lund
n=1304
n=2022
%
%
Kalmar
n=547
%
Växjö
n=702
%
Frequency of alcohol consumption
2 or more times per week
2 to 4 times per month
Once a month or less often
Never
6.3
55.4
33.4
4.9
11.5
55.7
30.3
3.5
3.6
53.4
38.3
4.7
15.5
59.7
21.4
3.4
10.4
56.6
29.0
4.0
Frequency of binge drinking1
2 or more times per week
2 to 4 times per month
Once a month or less often
Never
2.2
30.0
51.0
16.8
2.8
34.2
48.6
14.4
1.2
30.7
54.2
13.9
4.5
33.9
46.1
15.5
3.0
32.6
49.4
15.0
Binge drink at least monthly1
51.2
56.5
54.1
56.0
55.0
Ratio of binge drinking to any
drinking
0.50
0.51
0.55
0.45
0.49
Total
n=4575
%
1 Binge
drinking is equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine on one occasion. In terms of volume of alcohol consumed, this equates to about
1-75cl bottle of while, or 5-6 (25 cl) shots of spirits, or 4 cans of strong beer, or 6 cans of light beer.
Drink preference was measured by one question that asked the student to indicate the type of
alcoholic beverage they would typically prefer to drink, if they were given a choice. The most
popular choice of beverage was wine (30.9%) followed by strong beer (22.7%), a combination
of drinks (22.4), cider (12.2%) and spirits (4.5%). Fewer than 3% preferred any of the
following beverage types: alcopops, folköl fortified wines or other options. There were no
significant differences in the ranking of the top four beverage choices by study site.
Risk Factors for Weekly Drinking and Binge Drinking
Individual Characteristics
Drinking frequency and binge drinking was examined in relation to a number of potential risk
factors, including sex, age, living situation, income, and physical and mental health status (see
Table 3.4). The majority of these risk factors were predictive of the three outcome variables.
Males drank more regularly than women (46.6% versus 36.0%), and binged at almost twice
the rate of women (46.9% versus 28.9%). As a result, the ratio of men’s binge occasions to
drinking occasions was also significantly higher than women’s.
30
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 3.4
Individual Characteristics That Increase the Risk of Drinking Weekly and Binge
Drinking by Students (n=4537)
Sex
Male
Female
%
****
46.6
36.0
Binge Drank1
Twice a Month or
More Often
%
****
46.9
28.9
Age group
16 – 19
20 – 24
25 – 29
30 – 34
35 and older
**
36.0
41.0
39.9
29.5
40.6
****
33.8
32.4
35.1
15.8
11.6
****
0.47
0.55
0.49
0.32
0.21
Current living situation
Alone – apartment
Student corridor
With roommates
With parents
Partner and children
Partner and NO children
Children and NO partner
Other
****
44.4
48.3
49.9
29.8
32.6
31.5
17.3
47.5
****
41.8
49.4
55.0
27.2
11.2
24.6
9.6
36.1
***
0.53
0.57
0.60
0.43
0.27
0.44
0.36
0.46
Main form of income
Student loan
Work
Loan and work
Stipend
Parents
Other
40.5
41.7
33.9
62.5
38.9
34.4
****
38.2
27.5
29.5
37.5
38.2
17.4
****
0.52
0.38
0.44
0.39
0.49
0.34
Monthly disposable income
0 – 499 SEK
500 – 999
1000 – 1499
1500 – 1999
2000 – 2999
3000 or more
****
24.6
36.9
41.2
46.1
45.9
52.3
****
15.6
30.1
39.7
48.2
48.4
51.0
0.36
0.45
0.52
0.55
0.56
0.60
Physical health status
Very Good
Good
Ok
Rather Poor
Very Poor
Psychological health status
Very Good
Good
Ok
Rather Poor
Very Poor
*
43.2
42.0
37.2
35.6
34.6
****
54.6
57.0
54.5
48.1
30.8
***
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.45
0.43
39,9
42,2
39,7
34,2
39,1
53.8
56.8
54.1
54.8
49.3
0.49
0.49
0.48
0.50
0.52
****
****
***
43.8
33.5
40.8
44.3
37.5
45.0
56.5
61.7
0.43
0.43
0.50
0.51
Characteristic
Drank Weekly
Social support
At present, how many people do you have that you
feel you could comfortably confide in?
0
1-2
3-5
6 or more
1 Binge
Ratio of Binge
Drinking to
Drinking
Occasions
****
0.58
0.43
drinking is equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine on one occasion. In terms of volume of alcohol consumed, this equates to about
1-75cl bottle of while, or 5-6 (25 cl) shots of spirits, or 4 cans of strong beer, or 6 cans of light beer.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
31
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Age was unrelated to drinking frequency, except for individuals aged 30 to 34 years, who
reported drinking less often. The frequency of binge drinking, however, did decrease with
age.
Students living in their own apartments (44.4%), student corridors (48.3%), and those living
with roommates (49.9%), drank more often and were more likely to binge that those living in
other circumstances. Students with children were less likely to drink heavily (11.2% and
9.6%), and slightly less likely to drink regularly (32.6% and 17.3%).
While main type of income was not related to frequency of drinking, it was related to the
amount consumed by students. Those who received their main income from work—with
(27.5%) or without additional student loan (29.5%)—reported participating in binge drinking
less frequently.
Physical health was related to both frequency and quantity consumed. Students in good
physical health drank more often than those in poor health and they drank in significantly
greater volumes. Mental health was not related to either drinking quantity or frequency;
however, having a greater number of people to confide in was. This may indicate that having
a greater number of confidants meant having more close friends nearby, and thus more social
events and opportunities to drink.
Pre-University Factors
A number of factors that occurred in students’ lives before they attended university also were
related to their alcohol consumption while studying (see Table 3.5). Students who moved to
attend University from Stockholm, Göteborg or Malmö/Lund reported drinking more often
(53.2%) and in greater quantities (45.4%) than students from smaller cities and towns or who
had lived in the university town before school began. Home stability, prior to the age of 18,
was not significantly related to weekly drinking. A test for trend (not shown) does indicate
that with decreasing home stability the likelihood of drinking weekly increases, almost to the
point of significance (p=0.059). Students who lived in special circumstances prior to the age
of 18 were less likely to drink often (31.9%), or to binge drink often (29.6%).
University-related Characteristics
Course of study, involvement in activities on-campus, and progress through school were also
of interest in relation to students drinking patterns (see Table 3.6). While enrolment in freestanding courses was related to increased frequency of drinking (43.4% versus 38.9%),
enrolment in a program of study was related to frequency of heavy drinking (36.9% versus
32.6%). Thus, students enrolled in a program of study were binge drinking on 50% of their
drinking occasions, significantly more than those in enrolled in free-standing courses (43%).
Students enrolled in Economics/marketing, Law, Social Science and Technology courses were
most likely to drink often and heavily. Those enrolled in Police studies and Teaching drank
least often and in smaller quantities.
Completion of courses and progression through one’s studies was not related to frequency of
drinking; however, students who were earlier in their course of study (had accumulated fewer
academic points) were more likely to binge drink. Full-time students binged during about
50% of their drinking occasions, whereas part-time students did during only about a third of
their drinking occasions. This is possibly related to work status as well. Students who lived
in high student-density areas drank heavily in more of their drinking occasions. Participating
32
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
in activities on-campus raised the frequency and quantity of alcohol consumed. The only type
of activity that did not increase the intoxication to occasion ratio was involvement in training
and hobby-related activities. Students who had studied outside of Sweden drank more often
(50.6%) than those who had not (37.7%), and also had spent a larger portion of their drinking
occasions binge drinking (0.50% versus 0.44%).
Table 3.5
Pre-university Factors That Increase the Risk of Drinking Weekly and
Binge Drinking by Students (n=4537)
Drank Weekly
Pre-university Factors
%
Where lived before starting at current university
In city where school is located
Stockholm, Malmö / Lund or Göteborg
Other city (>27,000)
Small town or farm
Outside of Sweden
Parental living situation,
prior to age 18
Lived with both parents
Lived with one, saw other
often or always
Lived with one, saw other
irregularly or not at all
Adopted
No or little stability
Lived in special circumstances prior to age 18 1
Yes
No
Binge Drank1
Twice a Month or
More Often
%
Ratio of Binge
Drinking to
Drinking
Occasions
****
27.5
45.4
39.9
36.4
35.1
**
0.42
0.48
0.54
0.52
0.48
*
*
40,7
38,3
36.5
33.3
0.49
0.49
37,3
30.9
0.45
36,5
33,3
38.1
42.9
0.50
0.48
**
40,5
31,9
*
36.2
29.6
*
0.49
0.47
****
37,0
53,2
41,3
35,4
43,5
1 Binge
drinking is equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine on one occasion. In terms of volume of alcohol consumed, this equates to about
1-75cl bottle of while, or 5-6 (25 cl) shots of spirits, or 4 cans of strong beer, or 6 cans of light beer.
1 Special Circumstances include ever having lived in any of the following places prior to the age of 18: relatives other than parents or
adoptive parents, foster home, boarding school, treatment or other care institution, jail, or living on one’s own, with or without a roommate.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
Stress from school can also be related to students drinking patterns. Three measures were
used in this study to measure three different types of stress: autonomy, pressure and
satisfaction (see Table 3.6). Each of these measures was created from a number of statements
to which the student indicated their level of agreement or disagreement.
Autonomy was comprised of three statements:
“At school, I have very little freedom to decide which courses I would like to take,”
“I take a wide variety of interesting courses” and
“I have a lot of input about the speed at which I complete my studies.”
33
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
The pressure measure was comprised of four statements:
“I feel constantly under strain,”
“ I am not asked to do an excessive amount of studying,”
“I have enough time to get my assignments and studying done” and
“I can always rely on other students for support when things get rough at school.”
The final measure, satisfaction, was comprised of three statements:
“I gain a sense of accomplishment through my education,”
“My education will help me to get a good job” and
“You can generally trust me to do well in school.”
It is generally believed that it is better to have high levels of autonomy and satisfaction, but
lower levels of pressure for better student mental health.
In this study we found that Students under less pressure and with lower higher autonomy
drank alcohol more frequently (42.1% and 41.7% respectively) . Perhaps low pressure was
related to more frequent drinking because it allowed people more free time to socialize.
These same students also drank more when they were drinking, and thus had higher
intoxication to occasion ratios compared to students with under high pressure and with low
autonomy. This result suggests that these students are drinking more for enjoyment than to
escape.
Beverage Preference
Students who preferred to drink strong beer (52.8%), spirits (52.0%) or a combination of
different drinks in one sitting (43.2%) reported more binge drinking than students who
preferred other beverage types (fortified wines 35.4%, folköl 31.0%, wine 30.0%, cider 19.7%
other 21.0%) (p<0.0001). Students who preferred strong beer were also the most likely to
drink weekly (52.3%), although the variation with drink preference was not as large as with
binge drinking (combination 45.9%, wine 43.9%, folköl 42.9%, spirits 41.8%, fortified wines
31.8%, cider 16.3% other 24.7%).
34
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 3.6
University-Related Factors That Increase the Risk of Drinking Weekly and Binge
Drinking by Students (n=4537)
University-Related Factors
Drank Weekly
%
Course of study
Program
Free-standing courses
Area of study
Economics/marketing
Health (including Medical)
Law
Humanities
Natural Sciences
Teaching
Police
Social Science
Social Work
Technology
Other
Academic points from current school
0
1 – 40
41 – 80
81 or more
Study full-time
Yes
No
**
38.9
43.4
****
50.4
36.6
50.3
43.3
31.8
26.6
18.8
44.4
37.4
41.6
42.8
Binge Drank1
Twice a Month or
More Often
%
Ratio of Binge
Drinking to
Drinking
Occasions
39.8
43.9
***
36.9
32.6
***
51.2
28.8
42.1
28.1
28.0
26.7
23.4
40.6
34.0
42.4
33.0
****
58,3
57,1
58,1
49,7
****
36.6
22.3
**
0.50
0.43
***
0.60
0.46
0.48
0.36
0.44
0.50
0.54
0.51
0.46
0.54
0.43
****
0.52
0.51
0.53
0.43
****
0.49
0.34
Live in student region
High
Medium
Low/no
****
38.9
47.6
32.9
***
40.2
41.9
26.7
**
0.56
0.51
0.42
Participate in activities on campus
Pubs and parties ****
Athletics and hobbies ****
Extracurricular academics ****
Nations and associations****
None of the above
46.6
46.3
46.3
48.9
32.0
46.1
43.7
42.3
47.6
38.3
0.52
0.39
0.51
0.55
0.45
Studied outside of Sweden in gymnasium or
university
Yes
No
****
50.6
37.7
37.1
35.6
****
0.50
0.44
Course Pressure
Low
High
***
42.1
36.6
****
39.4
30.1
****
0,52
0,45
Course Autonomy
Low
High
**
37.3
41.7
*
33.9
37.1
0,49
0,50
Course Satisfaction
Low
High
43.8
39.8
36.9
35.8
*
0,53
0,49
41.8
41.9
36.7
39.7
1 Binge drinking is equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine on one occasion. In terms of volume of alcohol consumed, this equates to about
1-75cl bottle of while, or 5-6 (25 cl) shots of spirits, or 4 cans of strong beer, or 6 cans of light beer.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
35
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Multivariate Risk Factors for Binge Drinking
In order to gain a more thorough understanding of the main predictors of university student
binge drinking, a multivariate logistic regression was conducted. Each of the risk factors
identified in the bivariate analyses in this chapter was assessed for retention in the model.
Ultimately, since many of them were related, some had to be removed because they were too
similar to have in the model, and others were no longer significant risk factors once they were
all examined together in one analysis. The resulting model (seen in Table 3.7) identifies the
main risk factors predicting bi-weekly binge drinking.
Males were twice as likely to binge drink (OR=2.02) as females. Students aged 20-24 were
80% more likely, and those aged 25-29 were 62% more likely to binge drink than students
over the age of 35 years. Students who lived alone, in a student corridor or with roommates
were more than two times as likely to binge drink as those who lived with their parents or
with a partner and/or children.
As monthly disposable income went up 1000 SEK per month, students were 20% more likely
to binge drink. Similarly, for every two confidants that students had, they were an additional
16% more likely to binge drink biweekly.
Students whose main form of income was via work were only 70% as likely to binge drink as
those who were supported by their parents, and since there was no statistical difference
between those on student loan and those who obtained money from their parents, students
who lived off of their work income were about 30% less likely to binge drink as students on
student loan or stipend as well.
Students who lived in any of Stockholm, Malmö or Göteborg, prior to beginning their
education at the university were almost 40% more likely to binge drink biweekly as those who
lived within the city where the school is located.
Students who studied Economics, Social Sciences, Social work and technology courses were
at increased risk of binge drinking compared to students in other areas of study. In addition,
as students progressed further into their studies, their risk of binge drinking decreased by 12%
for every additional 40 credits that the student completed.
Students who attended parties and pubs on campus were 75% more likely to binge drink
compared with those who did not. Similarly, students who were involved in Nations and
associations on campus were also at increased risk of binge drinking. They were 27% more
likely to binge drink bi-weekly than were students who were not involved in such
associations.
Students who felt under high academic pressure were 20% less likely to binge drink than
those who reported that they were under low academic pressure to complete their work.
Finally, once all of these factors were controlled for, students at Umeå University were 20%
less likely to binge drink as students at the other universities in this study.
36
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 3.7
Multivariate Logistic Regression Identifying Risk Factors for Bi-weekly
Binge Drinking Among Students (n=4512)
Characteristic
Odds
Ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
Sex
Female [REF]
Male
1.00
2.02
1.74 - 2.35
Age Group
16 - 19 years
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 – 34
35 and older [REF]
1.33
1.81
1.62
0.84
1.00
Current Living Situation
With Parents [REF]
Alone, in Student corridor or with roommates
With partner and or children
1.00
2.18
1.02
1.61 - 2.94
0.74 - 1.39
Main form of income
Parents [REF]
Student loan or stipend
Work (with or without load as well)
1.00
1.10
0.70
0.83 - 1.44
0.50 - 0.96
Monthly disposable income
1.19
1.14 - 1.24
Social Support
1.16
1.05 - 1.28
1.00
1.38
1.03
0.97
1.09 - 1.74
0.86 - 1.22
0.65 - 1.45
Where lived before starting at current university
In city where school is located [REF]
Stockholm, Malmö / Lund or Göteborg
Small town or city
Outside of Sweden
Area of Study
Economics/marketing
Social Science
Social Work
Technology
Other [REF]
0.78
1.27
1.13
0.54
-
2.26
2.56
2.31
1.30
1.85
1.42
1.78
1.41
1.00
1.37
1.04
1.68
1.25
Academic points from current school
0.88
0.82 - 0.93
Participate in activities on campus
Pubs and parties
No Pubs and parties [REF]
Nations and associations
No nations and associations [REF]
1.76
1.00
1.27
1.00
1.49 - 2.05
Course pressure
Low [REF]
High
1.00
0.80
University
Umeå
Other universities [REF]
0.69
1.00
[REF] identifies the reference group where dummy variables have been used.
37
-
2.49
1.92
2.65
1.75
1.18 - 1.47
0.69 - 0.93
0.58 - 0.81
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Multivariate Risk Factors for Weekly Drinking
A second logistic regression was conducted in order to gain a more thorough understanding of
the main predictors of weekly drinking among university students. Each of the risk factors
identified in the bivariate analyses in this chapter was assessed for retention in the model. The
resulting model (seen in Table 3.8) identifies the main risk factors predicting bi-weekly binge
drinking
Males were 50% more likely to drink weekly than females. Students who lived alone, in a
student corridor or with roommates were almost twice as likely to drink weekly as whose who
lived with their parents. Students with partners or children were 14% more likely to drink
weekly than those living with their parents. Students who lived in Stockholm, Göteborg or
Malmö/Lund were 45% more likely to drink weekly; however those who lived outside of
Sweden were 20% less likely to drink weekly than those who had lived in the same town as
the university prior to starting their studies there.
When controlling for other factors n the model, weekly drinking was more common amongst
older students. Students in age groups below the age of 35 were only about 50% as likely to
drink weekly as those who were older. Students who had lived in special circumstances prior
to turning 18 years old also had decreased odds of drinking weekly. In addition, students who
were enrolled in a program of study were 15% less likely to drink weekly as those enrolled in
free-standing courses.
Students enrolled in economics and business were 40% more likely to drink weekly than were
students in other programs. Living in medium and high student-density areas were related to
a 27 to 38% increase in weekly drinking as was participating in parties and pubs on campus
(55% increase) and being active in nations and other associations (25% increase over those
who were not active). Students who had studied outside of the country during their either
gymnasium or university years were 50% more likely to drink weekly than those who did not.
Drinking was less frequent when students were under additional pressure due to their
coursework. Under high pressure, students were 15% less likely to drink weekly or more
often. Course satisfaction was also related to less frequent drinking.
Finally, students at Lund University had a 61% greater likelihood of drinking weekly when
compared to students at Kalmar. Students at Umeå University were only two-thirds as likely
to drink weekly, as were students from Kalmar. Students at Växjö neither drank more or less
often.
38
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 3.8
Multivariate Logistic Regression Identifying Risk Factors for Weekly Drinking
Among Students (n=4512)
Characteristic
Sex
Female [REF]
Male
Age Group
16 - 19 years
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 – 34
35 and older [REF]
Odds
Ratio
95%
Confidence Interval
1.00
1.50
1.30
0.45
0.54
0.58
0.49
1.00
0.27
0.41
0.44
0.35
1.73
-
0.74
0.72
0.78
0.70
Current Living Situation
With Parents [REF]
Alone, in Student corridor or with roommates
With partner and or children
Monthly disposable income
1.00
1.95
1.35
1.14
1.43 - 2.64
1.09 - 1.83
1.08 - 1.19
Social Support
1.19
1.06 - 1.40
1.00
1.45
0.80
0.79
1.15 - 1.82
0.67 - 0.96
0.53 - 1.19
Where lived before starting at current university
In city where school is located [REF]
Stockholm, Malmö / Lund or Göteborg
Small town or city
Outside of Sweden
1
Lived in special circumstances before the are of 18
Yes
No [REF]
Course of Study
Program
Free-standing courses [REF]
Area of Study
Economics/marketing
Other [REF]
Live in Student region
High
Medium
Low [REF]
Participate in activities on campus
Pubs and parties
No Pubs and parties [REF]
Nations and associations
No nations and associations [REF]
Studied outside of Sweden in gymnasium or university
Yes
No [REF]
Course pressure
Low [REF]
High
Course Satisfaction
Low
High
University
Kalmar [REF]
Växjö
Lund
Umeå
0.78
1.00
0.58 - 1.10
0.85
1.00
0.72 - 0.95
1.39
1.00
1.14 - 1.69
1.27
1.38
1.00
1.03 - 1.56
1.16 - 1.64
1.55
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.32 - 1.81
1.49
1.00
1.24 - 1.78
1.06 - 1.46
1.00
0.85
0.73
- 0.98
1.00
0.77
0.58
- 1.01
1.00
1.23
1.61
0.67
0.94
1.28
0.52
- 1.60
- 2.02
- 0.86
[REF] identifies the reference group where dummy variables have been used.
Special Circumstances include ever having lived in any of the following places prior to the age of 18: relatives other than parents or
adoptive parents, foster home, boarding school, treatment or other care institution, jail, or living on one’s own, with or without a roommate.
1
39
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
4. Prevalence and Context of Illicit Drug Use
Prevalence of Drug Use
Cannabis was used by far more students than any other drug, with 25.4% of students having
tried it during their lives, 8.9% having used it in the last 12 months, and 3.2 during the course
of the fall school term. Students reported the use of amphetamines as the second most
common drug used, with 4.1% using them lifetime, 0.8% using them in the last 12 months,
and 0.3% using them during the term. Ecstasy use was slightly less common than that of
amphetamines (with 3.2% lifetime and 0.9% 12-month, and 0.3% prevalence rates). Very few
students reported doping (0.5% lifetime, 0.3% 12 month, and 0.2% fall term prevalence rates),
and 7.4% of students indicated that they had taken some other form of illegal drug during
their lives, 2.0% in the last 12 months and 0.2% took another illegal drug during the course of
the fall term.
In total, 27.1% of students reported using any illicit drug during their lives (see Figure 4.1).
This differed by site, with students at Lund reporting significantly more drug use (33.1%) and
Kalmar reporting significantly less use (17.5%), than students at Umeå (24.5%) and Växjö
(22.4%) (p<0.0001). In the last year, 9.6% had used an illicit drug, and trends by site
followed the same patter as for lifetime drug use. Most of the students using these drugs have
also used cannabis (94% of those who had tried any drug in the their lives, and 93% of those
who had used on in the past year).
% Having Used
33,02
35
30
27,11
25
20
22,36
24,54
17,5
15
10
5
0
12,6
6,03
3,33
*
Kalmar
Figure 4.1
7,55
4,87
Växjö
9,76
8,1
3,28
Umeå
5,48
*
Lund
Lifetime
Year
Term
4,5
Total
Use of Any Drug, by Site (Excluding Prescriptives)
* p<=0.0001
40
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Prescription Drugs
For drugs that can be sold as legal over the counter drugs or by prescription from a physician,
our definition of a drug indicated that students should only report prescription drugs that were
taken without a valid prescription and those that were used in a manner NOT as prescribed by
the physician. Over the counter preparations were not to be considered drugs, nor were
prescription drugs that were taken as prescribed by a physician. Using this definition,
prescription drugs (painkillers, sedatives, tranquilizers, anti-depressives, and rohypnol) were
used by 15.4% of students during the course of their lifetimes, 9.1% in the last 12 months, and
6.9% of students during the fall term. These rates are somewhat higher than expected, and a
small number of people did write in the margin of the questionnaire that they were taking the
drug as prescribed. In cases where this was noted in the margin, the respondent’s answer was
changed to indicate non-use. However, if other students also included drugs that they were
taking as prescribed by physician, having missed our instruction, we could be over-estimating
the rate of ‘recreational’ prescription drug use.
Adding the use of prescription drugs to that of other drugs, we see that a total of 36% of
students had used a drug (other than alcohol and tobacco) during their lives (see Figure 4.2).
When comparing the four universities, this time Kalmar (26.4% lifetime, 12.7% 12 months)
was the only location where drug use was significantly different from the others. Kalmar’s
prevalence of drug use, including prescription drugs, did not differ from the other sites for the
prevalence of use during the fall term (9.5% versus 12.8%, 9.3%, 9.5%).
% Having Used
45
41,44
40
34,04
35
31,38
30 26,38
25
21,01
20
15,38
13,47
12,8
73
12,
15
9,5
9,46
9,31
10
5
0
* Kalmar
Lund
Växjö
Umeå
Figure 4.2
36
17,25
Lifetime
Year
Term
10,81
Total
Use of Any Drug, by Site (INcluding Prescriptives)
* p<=0.0001
41
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
University Specific Prevalence Rates
Table 4.1 shows a closer examination of the three most common types of drugs by university
site (see Table 4.1). Once standardized by age and sex, students at Lund have used cannabis
more than students at the other sites during each of the three time periods, whereas students at
Kalmar have reported less use during their lifetimes and the last 12 months only.
Table 4.1
Prevalence of Use, for the Three Most Regularly Used Categories of Drugs, by Site
(n=4559)
Characteristic
Cannabis
Lifetime ****
Last year ****
Current term1 *
Amphetamines
Lifetime ****
Last year
Current term1 **
Ecstasy
Lifetime ***
Last year **
Current term1 ***
University / Högskola
Umeå
Lund
n=1304
n=2022
%
%
Kalmar
n=547
%
Växjö
n=702
%
17,4
5,9
2,8
22,0
7,7
5,4
21,3
6,9
1,8
32,4
12,0
4,0
25,3
8,9
3,2
1,8
0,4
0,0
4,4
1,2
0,5
3,8
0,3
0,3
5,4
1,2
0,4
4,1
0,8
0,3
1,3
0,1
0,1
2,6
0,1
0,0
2,5
0,7
0,2
4,7
1,4
0,6
3,2
0,9
0,3
Total
n=4575
%
The actual length of time in this period varies between 2 and 4 months, depending upon when questionnaire was completed by the
participant
1
With respect to lifetime amphetamine use, students at Lund were more likely to have tried
them, and students at Kalmar less likely to have tried them. For 12-month prevalence,
students at Lund were most likely to have used them. Although it would appear by looking at
Table 4.1 that Lund also has the highest prevalence of use during the fall term, once
standardized for age and sex, students at Umeå were most likely to have used amphetamines
during that period (p<0.0001). Students at Kalmar reported no use of amphetamines during
the fall of 2003.
The rate of ecstasy use was highest at Lund during all three time periods and lowest at Kalmar
for the lifetime period only. Students at Växjö reported no use of ecstasy during the fall of
2003.
Context and Details of Cannabis Use
Lifetime, marijuana use was slightly more common than hash use by the students. Marijuana
alone was used by 27.8% of students who had reported using cannabis, 21.8% used hash only,
and the remaining 50.4% had used both. The mean age of debut of cannabis use was 19.0
years (SD 2.6). Students started hash use at a younger age (mean 18.2 years, SD 2.3) than the
started marijuana use (means 20.3 years, SD 2.6) (p<0.0001). Slightly more than half (52.4%)
of the students had tried cannabis the first time while feeling under the influence of alcohol,
less than 1% had been under the influence of another drug at the time.
Although 25.4% of students had tried cannabis during their lives, few students were regular
consumers of drugs; data suggest that the large majority have only experimented lightly. Of
42
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
the students who had tried cannabis, 35% had used it only 1-2 times, and 73.6 % had used it
10 or fewer times, in total. Similarly, 45% of students who had tried amphetamines or ecstasy
had used them only 1 or 2 times; 73% of amphetamine users and 76% of ecstasy users used
them as many as 10 times. See further details of the number of times cannabis was used, by
site in Figure 4.3.
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
# times used
100 or more
41 - 99 times
11 - 40 times
5 - 10 times
3- 4 times
1 - 2 times
Kalmar * Lund
Figure 4.3
Umeå
Växjö
Total
Number of Times Cannabis Has Been Used, by Site
- Lifetime
* p<=0.0001
Students who had used cannabis during the 12 months prior to the survey were asked
additional questions about the context of their use. Few cannabis users (7.5%) indicated that
they had used cannabis orally (i.e., in tea, brownies or other food); however 1.3% indicated
that they had only consumed it in this manner in the past 12 months. Only 6.0% of the
students indicated that they had used cannabis weekly or more often during the year, with less
than 1% reporting daily use. A large majority indicated that they had only used it less than
once a month (79.5%); 29.7% indicating that they had only used it one time.
Passing a joint (cannabis cigarette) around to others present is a common form of using this
drug, 85% of the students who had used cannabis in the last 12 months had been invited by
others to use. A smaller percentage had bought their own cannabis (34.7%) and growing
one’s own was even less common (1.31%).
When asked where the students got their cannabis, 37.7% indicated in the same city as the
university, 35.8% had gotten it from outside of the country, 22.1% got it from one of
Sweden’s three larges cities, 11.1% received it in a nearby town, 9.0% indicated that they had
gotten their cannabis in the university area, and 22.6% indicated that they got it is some other
43
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
location (multiple responses were possible). Some differences did exist by university.
Students from Växjö were more likely to get their cannabis in the university area. Students at
Lund were most likely to get their cannabis from outside of Sweden, or in one of Sweden’s
three largest cities (likely Malmö). Students at Umeå were most likely to report getting their
cannabis in Umeå. Finally, students at Kalmar were more likely to get theirs from an “other”
location.
Students were asked where they typically used cannabis during the 12 months prior to the
survey. The most frequently reported response was at friends home (64.8%), followed by
home (43.3%), outdoors (31.6%), outside of Sweden (23.5%), on vacation in Sweden (8.9%),
and at a club or bar (6.7%). Very few people indicated that they used cannabis at the
university (2.1%), at a rave or party (2.1%), or at work (1.1%); A further 7.8% of students
indicated that they used cannabis in an “other” location. Some differences did exist by
university. Students from Växjö were more likely to use at a friends home (74.5%) and at the
university (12.8%). Students at Lund were most likely use at home (45.9%) as were students
at Umeå (44.3). Finally, students at Kalmar were more likely to use outdoors (41.4%) or to
have used it outside of Sweden (34.5%).
When asked during which period in the last year did they used cannabis the most often, 44.6%
indicated that they used it most often in the term prior to the summer, followed by the summer
(38.7%). Only 16.7% indicated that they had used it most since the fall term began.
Responses to questions regarding control over, and fear of consequences of, cannabis use are
shown in Table 4.2. A majority of students felt that they were in control of their use, and felt
that the advantages of use outweighed the disadvantages. In addition, less than 20% indicated
that they had fears about being arrested by the police, or experiencing negative health or
mental health consequences resulting from their use of the drug. When only examining
students who had used cannabis more than 40 times (n=72), the results were somewhat less
skewed to the positive, but the shifts were barely significant.
Age of Debut
The use of tobacco, alcohol and softer drugs predated students’ use of harder drugs. Table
4.3 shows the age of debut for each of the substances. Students’ first experience of getting
drunk (15.8 years) predated daily tobacco use (16.7 years); however, had we asked about
initiation of occasional tobacco use, it likely would have predated the first experience of
intoxication. Amphetamines and ecstasy were the only harder drugs included these questions
due to the expected low frequency of consumption of other drugs. However, it is clear that
the age of debut for these drugs occurred later in life for these two drugs (19.9 years and 20.4
years respectively) than for marijuana (19.0 years).
44
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 4.2
Agreement with Statements About Control over Cannabis Use, and Fear of
Consequences (n=381)
Statement
Agree
strongly
%
Agree
Somewhat
%
Disagree
Somewhat
%
Disagree
Strongly
%
I have full control over my use of
marijuana/hash
94.0
5.2
0.5
0.3
The benefits of my marijuana/hash
outweigh the disadvantages
20.2
27.4
25.8
26.6
I worry that my physical health will be
influence by my use of marijuana/hash
7.4
11.6
15.2
65.8
I worry that I will be arrested by the
police if I continue to use marijuana/hash
5.0
11.3
18.6
65.1
I worry that my mental health will be
influence by my use of marijuana/hash
7.9
11.6
19.2
61.4
Table 4.3
Age of Debut
First time the participant …
Used tobacco daily
Became drunk (berusad)
Tried cannabis
Tried amphetamines
Tried ecstasy
Mean
age
16.7
15.8
19.0
19.9
20.4
(SD)
Range
n
(2.7)
(2.2)
(2.6)
(2.8)
(2.1)
8 - 30
8 - 30
12- 26
12-26
12-26
1391
4332
1148
185
143
Context and Details of Amphetamine and Ecstasy Use
The frequencies of use of amphetamines and ecstasy are reported in Figure 4.4. As with
cannabis, few students had used either of these drugs more than 10 times. Forty-five percent
of students who had tried either amphetamines or ecstasy had used them only 1 or 2 times;
73% of amphetamine users and 76% of ecstasy users had used them as many as 10 times.
Similar questions were asked about the context of amphetamine and ecstasy use as were asked
of cannabis; however since the numbers of students using the drugs was so small, this section
will only highlight where differences were seen when compared with cannabis.
The first time that the students tried amphetamines, 48.1% of the students were under the
influence of alcohol and another 9.6% were under the influence of another drug, likely
cannabis. Only 37 students had used amphetamines in the last year, 85% had taken it by pill
and 58.9% had sniffed (snorted) it. Only 10 students had used these drugs more than once
month over the last year. It was more common for people to buy their own amphetamines
(85%) than to be offered some by someone for free (47.1%). These drugs were most
commonly used at a friend’s house (57.6%), at bars (45.5%), and at home (42.4%). Another
45
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
20% used amphetamines outside of Sweden, and only 3% used them at the university.
Answers to the questions about control over use and fear of consequences of use of
amphetamines followed similar patterns to that of cannabis.
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
# times used
100 or more
41 - 99 times
11 - 40 times
5 - 10 times
3- 4 times
1 - 2 times
Amphetamines
Ecstasy
(n=187)
(n=146)
Figure 4.4
Number of Times Amphetamines and Ecstasy
Have Been Used - Lifetime
The first time that the students tried ecstasy, 44.8% of the students were under the influence of
alcohol and another 6.2% were under the influence of another drug, likely cannabis. Only 39
students had used ecstasy in the last year, all had taken it in pill form. Only 7 students had
used these drugs more than once month over the last year. As with amphetamines, it was
more common for people to buy their own ecstasy (82.1%) than to be offered some by
someone for free (43.6%). These drugs were most commonly used at bars (63.2%), a friend’s
house (42.1%), a club or rave (23.7%), and at home (23.7%). Another 23.7% used ecstasy
outside of Sweden, and none had reported their use at the university.
Answers to the questions about control over use and fear of consequences of use of
amphetamines and ecstasy followed similar patterns to that of cannabis.
Prevalence of Use of Other Drugs
The prevalence use other drug use is presented in Table 4.4. Painkillers (11.6%) had the
highest lifetime prevalence rate, followed by Sedatives (5.2%), Antidepressants (4.3%), magic
mushrooms (3.1%) and cocaine (2.7%).
46
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 4.4
Drug Use Prevalence1 (n=4559)
Drug Type
Year
%
Term
%
11.6
5.2
4.3
1.4
7.1
2.2
2.0
0.3
5.5
1.4
2.2
0.2
Cocaine
Crack
Magic Mushrooms
Other Hallucinogens
2.7
0.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
0.04
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.02
0.09
0.04
GHB
0.6
0.02
0.02
Heroin
0.6
0.0
0.0
Doping
0.5
0.3
0.2
Other drugs
1.9
0.5
0.4
Prescription Drugs
Painkillers
Sedatives
Anti-depressants
Rohypnol
Lifetime
%
1 drug
used as least one time during the period indicated
To be included these drugs were to have been taken against or without a physician’s prescription. However, given the high rates of
reported use it is not clear that participants followed this direction explicitly.
2
There were very few variations, by site, in the rates of lifetime use for the drugs listed in
Table 4.3. Students in Lund (3.8%), and to a lesser extent Kalmar (2.2%) were more likely to
report using cocaine than students in either Umeå (1.7%) or Växjö (1.8%) (p<0.0018). Magic
mushrooms were also not used at the same rates at all universities. Their use was most
common in Lund (3.8%), followed by Umeå (2.7%), Växjö (2.7%) and Kalmar (1.9%)
(p=0.0182).
Cocaine was the only drug that showed variation across the sites, in the 12-month prevalence
rates. More students at Lund reported using cocaine (1.00%), than at any other site (Kalmar,
0.6%, Umeå 0.3%, and Växjö, 0%) (p=0.0038).
During the course of the fall term, the use of two drugs differed across universities, painkillers
and sedatives. Use of painkillers during the fall term was highest at Lund University (6.2%),
with Kalmar second highest (5.3%), followed by Umeå (4.7%) and Växjö (3.5%) (p=0.0380).
Similarly, Lund recorded the highest prevalence rate for sedative use during the fall term
(1.8%), followed by Växjö (0.9%), Umeå (0.9%) and Kalmar (0.8%).
Risk Factors for Current Cannabis and Prescription Drug Use
Individual Characteristics
Twelve-month prevalence rates of cannabis use and prescription drug use were examined in
relation to a number of potential risk factors including: sex, age, living status income, health
status, and social support (see Table 4.5). The rates of both cannabis use and prescription
drug use were related to sex. Men reported more use of cannabis (12.2%) than women
(6.9%), and less use of prescription drugs (7.3% versus 10.6%). Younger students were more
likely to use cannabis, and older students were more likely to report using prescription drugs.
47
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 4.5
Individual Characteristics That Increase the Risk For Cannabis and Prescription Drug
Use by Students (n=4559)
Characteristic
Cannabis Use
12 month
Prevalence
%
****
12.2
6.9
Sex
Male
Female
Age group
16 – 19
20 – 24
25 – 29
30 – 34
35 and older
Current living situation
Alone – apartment
Student corridor
With roommates
With parents
Partner and children
Partner and NO children
Children and NO partner
Other
Main form of income
Student loan
Work
Loan and work
Stipend
Parents
Other
Monthly disposable income
0 – 499 SEK
500 – 999
1000 – 1499
1500 – 1999
2000 – 2999
3000 or more
Physical health status
Very Good
Good
Ok
Rather Poor
Very Poor
Psychological health status
Very Good
Good
Ok
Rather Poor
Very Poor
Social support
At present, how many people do you have that you
feel you could comfortably confide in?
0
1-2
3-5
6 or more
* p<0.05,
** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
48
Prescription Drug Use
12 month
Prevalence
%
****
7.3
10.6
****
7.2
10.8
8.4
3.7
0.9
*
12.3
8.7
8.8
10.2
12.6
****
9.4
14.9
15.4
7.9
2.6
4.1
5.7
8.3
***
10.1
7.6
12.7
8.9
11.1
7.3
11.6
10.8
****
10.1
4.4
5.9
6.5
7.5
2.4
*
****
3.7
9.3
9.8
11.1
7.9
11.8
***
11.3
8.6
8.9
7.9
10.8
11.3
*
7.9
9.3
10.4
8.9
7.7
****
6.9
9.5
11.7
14.1
23.1
***
7.9
8.1
9.5
11.9
17.4
****
5.6
8.3
12.1
13.3
30.4
9.4
10.5
10.3
0.0
8.2
6.1
***
14.0
8.3
8.8
9.3
16.0
11.6
9.4
6.4
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Twelve-month cannabis use was most common among students living on their own (14.9%),
in student corridors (15.4%), and with roommates (9.4%). There was some overlap with
prescription drug use, in that students living with roommates (12.7%) reported the highest
rates of use. Use was also high among students living with children—with (11.1%) or
without (11.6%) a partner—and it was also increased among those who lived alone (10.1%).
Students living primarily off of money obtained through student loan (10.1%) were most
likely to use cannabis; whereas those who obtained their income primarily through work
(10.5% and 10.3%) were more likely to use prescription drugs. With both types of drugs,
individuals with higher disposable incomes were more likely to have taken the drug in the
past year. However, the rate of prescription drug use was also raised among those with a
disposable income of only 500 SEK or less.
Physical and Mental health status was related to both types of drugs, although the association
was stronger with prescription drug use. Cannabis use was highest amongst people who
described their physical health as okay (10.4%); whereas prescription drug use increased with
deteriorating physical health. The trend with mental health was similar with both types of
drugs. People with poorer health used significantly more cannabis and prescription drugs than
did people who reported their mental health to be better. Social support was poorer for those
taking prescription drugs, they felt that they had fewer close friends and family members that
they could confide in.
Pre-university Factors
A number factors that occurred in students lives before they attended university also were
related to the use of cannabis and prescription drugs (see Table 4.6). Students moving to their
university town from one of Sweden’s three largest cities (11.7%), and those relocating from
outside of Sweden were more likely to use cannabis (23.9%); whereas students who had
already lived in their current location (10.5%) and those who moved from Stockholm,
Göteborg and Malmö (10.5%) used more prescription drugs. Students who had less stability
in the home prior to the age of 18 were more likely to use cannabis and prescription drugs.
Students who had lived in special circumstances also reported higher rates of prescription
drugs (12.9%) compared with those who had not (9.0%).
University-related Characteristics
Course of study, involvement in activities on-campus, and progress through school were also
of interest in relation to students’ use of cannabis and prescription drugs in the 12 months
prior to the study (see Table 4.7). Students enrolled in free-standing courses reported higher
rates of both types of drugs, than those enrolled in a program of study. Students enrolled in
Social Science (13.0%), Humanities (12.8%), Technology (10.8%) and Economics/marketing
(10.5%) reported the highest rates of cannabis use. Those enrolled in Law (12.8%), Health
(12.4%), Humanities (10.9%) and Social work (10.5%) reported the highest rates of
prescription drug use. Students in Police studies reported the lowest rates of both cannabis
(1.6%) and prescription drugs (0.0%).
Students studying full-time reported more cannabis use, but not more prescription drug use.
As students progressed further into their education (increased number of academic points)
their use of both types of drugs decreased. Living in a moderate-to-high student-density area
was associated with increased cannabis use, but was unrelated to the use of prescription drugs.
Involvement in university-based activities was not related to drug use. Studies outside of
Sweden were associated with increased use of both types of drugs (cannabis, 13.4%,
49
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
prescription drugs 11.3%) compared with study that occurred only in Sweden (cannabis 7.8%,
prescription drugs 8.7%).
Increased course pressure was associated with an increase prescription drug use (10.7%), but
not cannabis use. A low level of satisfaction with one’s course of study was also associated
with increased prescription drug use (14.3%). Cannabis use was associated with increased
course autonomy (9.0%).
Table 4.6
Pre-university Factors That Increase the Risk for Cannabis and Prescription
Drug Use by Students (n=4559)
Cannabis Use
12 month
Prevalence
%
Pre-university Factors
Prescription Drug Use
12 month
Prevalence
%
Where lived before starting at current university
In city where school is located
Stockholm, Malmö / Lund or Göteborg
Other city (>27,000)
Small town or farm
Outside of Sweden
****
5.7
11.7
9.7
8.3
23.9
*
10.5
10.5
8.8
7.7
9.9
Parental living situation,
prior to age 18
Lived with both parents
Lived with one, saw other
often or always
Lived with one, saw other
irregularly or not at all
Adopted
No or little stability
*
*
8.4
12.7
8.7
10.7
9.9
12.5
9.2
4.8
8.2
4.8
8.8
10.3
***
9.0
12.9
Lived in special circumstances prior to age 18 1
Yes
No
Special Circumstances include ever having lived in any of the following places prior to the age of 18: relatives other than parents or
adoptive parents, foster home, boarding school, treatment or other care institution, jail, or living on one’s own, with or without a roommate.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
1
50
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 4.7
University-Related Factors That Increase the Risk for Cannabis and Prescription Drug
Use by Students (n=4559)
Cannabis Use
12 month
Prevalence
%
University-Related Factors
Prescription Drug Use
12 month
Prevalence
%
Course of study
Program
Free-standing courses
**
8.3
10.7
**
8.7
10.6
Area of study
Economics/marketing
Health (including Medical)
Law
Humanities
Natural Sciences
Teaching
Police
Social Science
Social Work
Technology
Other
****
10.5
5.6
9.2
12.8
6.6
3.7
1.6
13.0
6.3
10.8
7.6
****
8.4
12.4
12.8
10.9
9.5
6.6
0.0
9.9
10.5
6.9
11.3
Academic points from current school
0
1 – 40
41 – 80
81 or more
**
10.5
9.3
8.6
7.6
*
10.2
9.7
8.9
8.4
Study full-time
Yes
No
****
9.3
2.4
9.1
10.7
Live in student region
High
Medium
Low/no
****
9.1
10.7
6.1
8.4
9.1
9.9
6.5
11.7
8.2
11.1
9.3
8.9
9.6
8.3
8.5
9.5
****
13.4
7.8
**
11.3
8.7
9.1
8.6
**
8.3
10.7
Participate in activities on campus
Pubs and parties
Athletics and hobbies
Extracurricular academics
Nations and associations
None of the above
Studied outside of Sweden in gymnasium or
university
Yes
No
Course Pressure
Low
High
Course Autonomy
Low
High
Course Satisfaction
Low
High
* p<0.05,
**
7.2
9.6
9.0
8.9
** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
51
9.8
8.9
**
14.3
8.8
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Other Substance Use
Frequent and heavy alcohol use, daily (or former daily) use of tobacco and having close
contacts who used illicit drugs were also related to use of cannabis and prescription drugs (see
Table 4.8). Cannabis use was more prevalent among students who currently or formerly used
tobacco daily (16.5%), those who binge drank at least monthly (17.1%), those who drank at
least weekly (15.8%), those who had experienced more alcohol problems and students who
had at least one close friend or family member who had used illicit drugs (20.5%).
Prescription drug use was more prevalent among students who currently or formerly used
tobacco daily (12.1%), those who drank at least weekly (10.3%), those who had experienced
more alcohol problems and students who had at least one close friend or family member who
had used illicit drugs (11.3%).
Table 4.8
Substance Use Correlates with the Use of Cannabis and Prescription Drugs
by Students (n=4539)
Cannabis Use
12 month
Prevalence
%
Substance Use Indicators
Prescription Drug Use
12 month
Prevalence
%
Used Tobacco daily or formerly daily (lifetime)
Yes
No
****
16.5
5.6
****
12.1
7.9
Binge drink at least twice monthly (12 months)
Yes
No
****
17.1
4.3
9.5
9.0
Drink weekly (12 months)
Yes
No
****
15.8
4.3
*
10.3
8.4
Alcohol problems
0
1
2
3
4
5
****
5.5
10.5
15.8
19.7
24.6
18.4
****
7.4
8.8
14.2
12.3
23.1
21.1
Close family member or friend uses/has used drugs
Yes
No
****
20.5
2.6
**
11.3
8.3
1
Binge drinking is equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine on one occasion. In terms of volume of alcohol consumed, this equates to about
1-75cl bottle of while, or 5-6 (25 cl) shots of spirits, or 4 cans of strong beer, or 6 cans of light beer.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
Clearly, there are different patterns, and predictors of use for prescription drugs and cannabis.
We are also perhaps seeing some confusion between those who might have been taking the
prescription legitimately compared to those using it illicitly. Some things about the patterns
of responses for these drugs indicate this, including: bimodal distributions, poor health status,
and the use of these drugs even with a low disposable income. However, other patterns are
indicative of a more recreational type of drug use, such as: their association with other
52
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
substance use indicators, increased use within only certain types of educational programs and
among students taking free-standing courses, and their relationship to study outside of
Sweden and course pressure and satisfaction. Further research is necessary in this area to
confirm or refute these findings.
Multivariate Risk Factors for Cannabis Use
In order to gain a more thorough understanding of the main predictors of cannabis use among
university students a multivariate logistic regression was conducted. Each of the risk factors
identified in the bivariate analyses in this chapter was assessed for retention in the model.
Ultimately, since many of them were related, some had to be removed because they were too
similar to have in the model and others were no longer significant risk factors once all were
examined together in one analysis. The resulting model (seen in Table 4.9) identifies the main
risk factors predicting cannabis use during the year prior to the students’ participation in this
study.
Males were more likely than females to have used cannabis. Students aged 20 to 24 used
cannabis at a rate of two and a half times that of those aged 35 and older. While there was a
trend towards increased cannabis use by students in the other age groups, the trend was not
significant at the p=0.05 level in this particular analysis. Students who lived in small towns
prior to beginning their university studies were more likely to use cannabis (a 40% increase);
however, those who came to the university from outside of Sweden were four times as likely
to have used cannabis in the last year. Students who studied as guest students, outside of
Sweden, also had a 40% higher likelihood of having used cannabis during the last 12 months.
Full-time students were twice as likely as part-time students to have used cannabis. In
addition, for every two confidants that students had, the risk of using cannabis increased an
additional 16%.
Students whose main income came from their work were only 60% as likely, as those who
were supported by other means, to use cannabis; and students who were enrolled in a program
of study were only 75% as likely as those in free-standing courses to be current users.
Other substance use was also strongly related to the use of cannabis. Students who drank
weekly had a 68% increased risk, those who binge drank had a two-fold risk, those who had
smoked daily had a two and half times greater risk, and students who has a close family
member or exhibited a six and half times greater risk of using cannabis than those who did
not.
Finally, students at Lund University were 42% more likely to have used cannabis in the 12month period prior to completing the survey.
53
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 4.9
Multivariate Logistic Regression Identifying Risk Factors for Cannabis Use
During the 12 Months Prior to the Study (n=4512)
Characteristic
Sex
Female [REF]
Male
Age Group
16 - 19 years
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 – 34
35 and older [REF]
Odds
Ratio
95%
Confidence Interval
1.00
1.41
1.10 - 1.80
2.43
2.64
1.81
1.79
1.00
0.84
1.26
0.85
0.71
-
6.96
5.51
3.85
4.43
Current Living Situation
With Parents [REF]
Alone, in Student corridor or with roommates
With partner and or children
1.00
1.06
0.55
Main form of income
Work
All other forms [REF]
0.59
1.00
0.39 - 0.91
Social Support
1.13
1.11 - 1.27
Where lived before starting at current university
In city where school is located [REF]
Stockholm, Malmö / Lund or Göteborg
Small town or city
Outside of Sweden
1.00
1.41
1.40
3.99
0.95 - 2.08
1.01 - 1.92
2.32 - 6.83
Study full-time
Yes
No [REF]
2.04
1.00
1.24 - 5.02
Course of Study
Program
Free-standing courses [REF]
0.73
1.00
0.55 - 0.96
Studied outside of Sweden in gymnasium or university
Yes
No [REF]
1.41
1.00
1.05 - 1.88
Used Tobacco daily or formerly daily (lifetime)
Yes
No [REF]
2.58
1.00
2.01 - 3.29
1.96
1.00
1.46 - 2.62
Drink weekly (12 months)
Yes
No [REF]
1.68
1.00
1.26 - 2.24
Close family member or friend uses/has used drugs
Yes
No [REF]
6.35
1.00
4.84 - 8.31
University
Lund
Other universities
1.42
1.00
1.11 - 1.81
Binge drink at least twice monthly (12 months)
Yes
No [REF]
0.64 - 1.73
0.32 - 0.96
1
[REF] identifies the reference group where dummy variables have been used.
1 Binge drinking is equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine on one occasion. In terms of volume of alcohol consumed, this equates to about
1-75cl bottle of while, or 5-6 (25 cl) shots of spirits, or 4 cans of strong beer, or 6 cans of light beer.
54
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
5. Drug and Alcohol Use Problems
The Occurrence of Substance Use-related Harms
Students who reported drinking alcohol within the 12 months prior to the study (n=4362, or
96% of the study sample) were asked a follow-up set of questions around the negative effects
of alcohol. Specifically they were asked whether their alcohol consumption had had a
significant negative affect on any of the following areas of their life, within the last 12
months: (a) Family life, marriage or relationship; (b) Friendships or social life; (c) Physical
Health; (d) Studies or work life; or (e) financial situation. Students who reported using drugs
other than alcohol or tobacco were asked this set of questions again, later in the questionnaire.
The second time, the question asked specifically whether their drug use had negatively
impacted any of the areas listed above. Table 5.1 shows the results of these two sets of
questions.
Table 5.1
Harms experienced by Students as a Result of Substance Use
Percent of students
who had used drugs1
in the last 12 months
(n=423)
Area of Life where harm has experienced due to
OTHER DRUGS1 use in the last 12 months
Physical Health
Financial situation
Study or work life
Family life/ marriage/relationship
Friendships or social life
8.2
6.2
4.7
5.4
4.7
Percent of students
who had used alcohol
in the last 12 months
(n=4362)
Area of Life where harm has experienced due to
ALCOHOL use in the last 12 months
Physical Health
Financial situation
Study or work life
Family life/ marriage/relationship
Friendships or social life
1
26.3
25.7
9.4
8.0
6.3
Percent of
All students
(n=4559)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Percent of
All students
(n=4575)
25.1
24.5
9.0
7.5
6.0
In this table, “other drugs” refers to all drugs other than tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs.
The first column of numbers in the table indicates the proportion of students who actually
used alcohol or drugs during the 12 months in question. The second column of numbers
shows what percentage of the whole student sample would experience the problem, given that
96% of the students use alcohol, and only 9.8% of the students used drugs during the same
time period. For example, negative effects to one’s physical health were reported most
frequently in relation to current drug use. Over 8% of those who took drugs (other than
alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs) within the 12 months prior to the survey reported
experiencing consequences to their physical health. As a result, this means that only 0.8% of
the entire student sample experienced negative physical health consequences due to drug use.
Contrast this with the proportion of students who experienced negative physical consequences
resulting from drinking alcohol (25.1%). It is clear from this table that alcohol use carries
55
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
many more negative consequences for student users than do drugs. The small amount of drug
harms experienced by students who have used them is likely to be a direct result of the fact
that so few students had ever used them on a regular basis, whereas most students used
alcohol on a very regular basis.
On average, students who drank experienced 0.74 harms per person, pr less than one. Yet 43%
of students had experienced harm within at least one of these areas; therefore a number of
students experienced negative consequences in more than one area. Table 5.2 shows the
number of drinkers/users and how many areas they have received negative consequences in.
A much larger number of drug users reported being free of negative consequences often
associated with drug use. On average, drug users only experienced 0.29 harms per user,
compared to 0.74 per alcohol drinker.
Table 5.2
Cumulative number of areas in which students experienced Negative Consequences
Number of Areas in Negative
Consequences were experienced
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
Current Drinkers
(n=4362)
(%)
57.3
21.0
12.9
5.5
1.5
0.9
Current drug users1
(n=423)
%
83.5
9.2
4.0
1.9
0.9
0.5
In this table, “drugs” refers to all drugs other than tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs.
Alcohol and Drug Harms by Site
The prevalence of drug and alcohol-related harms were compared across the four participating
universities (see Table 5.3). Students at Lund University recorded the highest prevalence of
drug-related harms (2.0% of students), while those at Kalmar (0.7% of students) recorded the
least. However in relative terms, Växjö drug users experienced more harms that those at the
other three sites, Växjö merely has a smaller population of drug users, so that there is not a
comparatively high percentage of students, overall, experiencing these harms.
More drinkers at Umeå University experienced one or more alcohol-related harm in the 12
months prior to the survey, at 45.7%. This ultimately translated into 43.1% of the entire
Umeå sample experiencing an alcohol-related harm.
Risk Factors for Alcohol and Drug Related Harms
The same demographic characteristics that were examined in relation to drinking frequency
and pattern, illicit drug use and illicit prescription use were also examined with respect to
alcohol and drug-related harms. The tables in this section use the reporting of one or more
alcohol-related harm, and the reporting of one or more drug related harm as the dependent
variables of the analyses. Since so few students experiences drug-related harm, the
percentages seen in the tables are very low (mostly below 1%) and thus there are very few
significant predictors. Future analyses will also examine these predictors within the smaller
sub-population of students who have used drugs within the last year.
56
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 5.3
Percentage of Students Who Experienced at least One negative consequence due to
Drinking or Drug Use1 in the 12 months Prior to the Study, by Site
Number of current drug
users2
Percent of drug users
reporting 1 or more negative
drug experiences
Percent of students reporting
1 or more negative drug
experiences
Number of current drinkers2
Percent of drinkers reporting
1 or more negative alcohol
experiences
Percent of students reporting
1 or more negative alcohol
experiences
University / Högskola
Umeå
Lund
100
242
Kalmar
32
Växjö
49
Total
423
12.5%
22.4%
14.0%
16.9%
16.5%
0.07%
1.5%
1.0%
2.0%
1.5%
517
37.5%
671
40.1%
1230
45.7%
1944
41.0%
4362
42.7%
35.4%
38.3%
43.1%
40.0%
41.0%
In this table, “drugs” refers to all drugs other than tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs.
This number refers to the total number of individuals who have answered all relevant questions in this table, a small number of missing
cases on the harm questions, the total is less than is used in other current drug user tables.
1
2
Individual Characteristics
A number of characteristics were associated with having experienced one or more type of
negative alcohol consequences during the year prior to the study (see Table 5.4). Males,
students aged 20 to 24, and living in a student corridor, with a roommate or alone all
increased the risk of harm. Having a higher disposable income and having a student loan as
one’s main form of income were also related to the experience of harm. Finally, poor
psychological health was a strong predictor of alcohol-related harm. Only two of the
individual characteristics tested predicted student’s experience of drug-related negative
consequences; however, a few others indicated potential trends. Living in a student corridor
or with roommates, and having a higher disposable income both were predictive of
experiencing drug-related harm.
Pre-university Factors
Only one of the factors tested was related to increased alcohol-related harm (see Table 5.5).
Students who had lived either Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö/Lund or outside of Sweden
directly before beginning their education at the university were more likely to have
experienced an negative consequence related to drinking. Increased drug harm was associated
with living with only one parent for at least before the age of 18, and living in special
circumstances outside of the traditional family setting.
57
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 5.4
Individual Characteristics That Increase Students’ Risk of Experiencing
Alcohol and Drug-related Problems (n=4559)
Characteristic
Percent experiencing
alcohol problems
****
48
36
****
41
46
41
24
19
Percent experiencing
drug problems
Current living situation
Alone – apartment
Student corridor
With roommates
With parents
Partner and children
Partner and NO children
Children and NO partner
Other
****
47
62
65
30
20
35
16
42
**
0.45
1.62
0.79
0.56
0.48
0.28
0.00
0.83
Main form of income
Student loan
Work
Loan and work
Stipend
Parents
Other
****
44
36
33
24
36
26
0.79
0.34
1.69
0.00
0.31
0.00
Monthly disposable income
0 – 499 SEK
500 – 999
1000 – 1499
1500 – 1999
2000 – 2999
3000 or more
****
28
39
43
50
44
56
**
0.00
0.03
0.60
0.71
0.81
2.12
Physical health status
Very Good
Good
Ok
Rather Poor
Very Poor
***
36
43
47
42
35
0.69
0.63
1.00
0.00
0.00
Psychological health status
Very Good
Good
Ok
Rather Poor
Very Poor
****
35
43
44
49
51
0.45
0.65
1.17
0.65
0.00
Social support
At present, how many people do you have that you
feel you could comfortably confide in?
0
1–2
3–5
6 or more
40
38
42
44
0.00
0.77
0.70
0.60
Sex
Male
Female
Age group
16 – 19
20 – 24
25 – 29
30 – 34
35 and older
* p<0.05,
** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
58
0.21
0.05
0.72
0.78
0.82
0.36
0.00
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 5.5
Pre-university Factors That Increase Students’ Risk of Experiencing
Alcohol and Drug-related Problems (n=4559)
Percent
experiencing
alcohol problems
Pre-university Factors
Where lived before starting at current university
In city where school is located
Stockholm, Malmö / Lund or Göteborg
Other city (>27,000)
Small town or farm
Outside of Sweden
Parental living situation,
prior to age 18
Lived with both parents
Lived with one, saw other
often or always
Lived with one, saw other
irregularly or not at all
Adopted
No or little stability
Lived in special circumstances prior to age 18 1
No
Yes
Percent
experiencing
drug problems
****
33
50
44
42
47
0.84
1.18
0.62
0.25
0.29
41
45
*
0.52
1.75
38
1.16
36
33
0.00
0.88
41
42
****
0.58
3.58
1 Special Circumstances include ever having lived in any of the following places prior to the age of 18: relatives other than parents or
adoptive parents, foster home, boarding school, treatment or other care institution, jail, or living on one’s own, with or without a roommate.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
University-related Characteristics
A number of factors related to the university setting and experience were also associated with
increased alcohol-related harm (see Table 5.6). Students enrolled in full-time studies, those
living in medium and high-student density housing, students early in the course of their
studies, and those participating in all types of activities on campus experienced elevated levels
of harm. Students who reported high levels of course autonomy and satisfaction were more
likely to have experienced a negative consequence related to drug use during the year prior to
the interview.
Other Substance Use
All of the other substance use measures examined in this section were strongly related to both
alcohol and drug related harms (see Table 5.7). Students who either currently or formerly
used tobacco daily, and those who had a close friend or a family member who had used drugs
were at increased risk of harm. Also, students who drank at least weekly and those who
binge-drank at least bi-weekly were at increased risk of both alcohol and drug-related harm.
59
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 5.6
University-Related Factors That Increase Students’ Risk of Experiencing
Alcohol and Drug-related Problems (n=4559)
Percent experiencing
alcohol problems
University-Related Factors
Percent experiencing
drug problems
Course of study
Program
Free-standing courses
39
42
0.70
0.63
Area of study
Economics/marketing
Health (including Medical)
Law
Humanities
Natural Sciences
Teaching
Police
Social Science
Social Work
Technology
Other
**
48
38
53
40
36
38
33
42
35
47
49
0.64
0.60
1.32
1.29
0.91
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.90
0.72
0.91
Academic points from current school
0
1 – 40
41 – 80
81 or more
**
46
44
41
37
*
1.03
0.62
0.44
0.65
Study full-time
No
Yes
*
33
42
0.00
0.72
Live in student region
High
Medium
Low/no
****
49
46
32
0.32
0.91
0.68
Participate in activities on campus
Pubs and parties
Athletics and hobbies
Extracurricular academics
Nations and associations
None of the above
Studied outside of Sweden in gymnasium or
university
No
Yes
****
50
49
47
52
41
0.75
0.66
0.73
0.89
0.72
41
44
0.66
0.73
Course Pressure
Low
High
41
44
*
0.53
0.95
Course Autonomy
Low
High
*
39
45
0.69
0.58
Course Satisfaction
Low
High
**
38
51
*
1.23
0.64
* p<0.05,
** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
60
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 5.7
Substance Use Correlates of Experiencing Alcohol and Drug-related Problems
(n=4559)
Percent experiencing
alcohol problems
Substance Use Indicators Factors
Percent experiencing
drug problems
Used Tobacco daily or formerly daily (lifetime)
No
Yes
****
37
51
*
0.48
1.15
Binge drink at least twice monthly (12 months) 1
No
Yes
Drink weekly (12 months)
No
Yes
Close family member or friend uses/has used drugs
No
Yes
****
27
66
****
30
68
****
34
52
****
0.26
1.48
****
0.18
1.43
****
0.03
1.88
1 Binge drinking is equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine on one occasion. In terms of volume of alcohol consumed, this equates to about
1-75cl bottle of while, or 5-6 (25 cl) shots of spirits, or 4 cans of strong beer, or 6 cans of light beer.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)
The AUDIT was developed by the World Health Organisation, as a 10-item screening
instrument to identify people at risk of developing alcohol problems. Individuals item scores
range from zero to four and a score of eight or more is used as an indicator of problem
drinking (Allen, 1997). The percentage of students drinking harmfully according to the
AUDIT 8-point cut-off for is men 35.7% and the AUDIT 6-point cut-of for women is 56.6%.
These figures were quite similar across sites. This figure was highest for men in Lund
(59.0%), followed by Växjö (57.9%), Umeå (56.7%) and Kalmar (54.6%). Although once
standardized by age and sex, Umeå drops to the lowest position (p<0.01). This figure was
highest for women in Lund (58.2%), followed by Växjö (56.5%), Umeå (57.5%) and Kalmar
(49.5%), with Kalmar significantly lower in score for the women (p<0.001).
Driving Under the Influence
Sweden has put considerable effort forth in attempting to reduce the incidence of drinkdriving. In this study we asked a limited number of questions regarding the practice of drinkdriving. These questions were in the final section of the questionnaire where the Universities
could put forth questions that they felt were of particular interest to themselves, but that might
not be relevant to everyone. Three sites chose to include the questions about driving, under
the influence of alcohol and drugs, and being a passenger while the driver was under the
influence. Students from Lund University did not complete this section of questions.
This set of questions only dealt with one of the study’s three time frames: the Fall 2003
school term. As a result, the participants’ answers cannot be compared to data from any other
source, as the time frame is variable depending upon when the student completed the
questionnaire. It is estimated that, on average this period would be roughly 9 weeks, based
upon when the completed questionnaires were received at the study office.
61
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Students were asked initially if they had access to a car during the school term. 35% indicated
that they “never” had access to a car, and thus they were not asked questions about driving
under the influence, only riding. Of the 1639 participants who indicated that they had access
to a car, 1.57% indicated that they had driven while under the influence of alcohol (1.10% had
driven once, 0.37% had driven between two and four times, and 0.10% indicated that they
were unsure how many times they had driven). It was most common to drive after drinking
strong beer; however, a small number of participants also drove after drinking spirits and
wine. When asked how many drinks they had had prior to driving the answers ranged from
less than one full drink to more than ten drinks, with the mean of three (SD 2.4). Eleven of
the 33 students who had driven while under the influence had consumed more than five drinks
before driving.
Students with access to a car were also asked about driving under the influence of drugs other
than alcohol during the Fall 2003 term. Ten individuals, 0.61% of students, with an available
car, reported having driven under the influence of drugs.
Riding in a Car When the Driver Had Been Drinking
Once again, these questions were asked regarding behaviour during the Fall 2003 school term
only. All students at Växjö, Umeå and Kalmar were to answer these questions, not merely
those with a car available for them to drive. Less than 5% (4.26%) reported riding in a car
when the driver had been drinking, a further 5.2% indicated that they did not know if they had
been in this situation. Another 2.13% of the students indicated that they had ridden in a car
when the driver was under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. In most cases the drug
used was cannabis. A further 2.4% reported that they had ridden in a car when they were
unsure whether the driver was under the influence of drugs or not.
62
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
6. Reasons Why Students Choose NOT to Try Drugs
The majority of the study sample (2917) had neither experimented with drugs nor used them
regularly. These students were asked a series of questions regarding their interest in trying
drugs, and their reasons for not using them to date.
Desire to Try Drugs
Sixteen and a half percent of the students who had never used a drug for “recreational“
purposes expressed a desire to try them. Students who indicated that they had at least one
close friend or family member who had used drugs, expressed significantly lower desire to try
drugs (13.3%) when compared with students who had no close contacts with drug-use
experience (26.0%). By site, the desire to try a drug was highest at Kalmar (86.8%), followed
by Växjö (85.3%), Umeå (84.5%) and Lund (80.8%).
Reasons Given by Participants for Not Using Drugs
The top ten reasons endorsed by non-drug users for continuing not to use them are listed, in
order of popularity, in Figure 6.1. The reason that was endorsed by the largest number of
students was that “Drugs aren’t good for your health.” The law (drugs are illegal) was not
considered to be a particularly important reason not to use drugs, it placed 7th in the list
according to how many people indicated that it was an important reason for them. Health
reasons, and the influence of drugs on behaviour were far more important reasons for these
students. Table 6.1 shows the percentages of students who agreed and strongly agreed with
each of the top 10 reasons, by site. There was remarkable consistency across the universities
in how the participants answered these questions. There were significant differences between
the sites on only four of the items, and the rank ordering was highly consistent across sites.
Students at Lund did tend to endorse most statements with a lower level of agreement.
Table 6.1
Reasons Not to Use Drugs, by Site (n=2894)
Kalmar
n=547
% Agree
University / Högskola
Växjö
Umeå
Lund
n=702
n=1304
n=2022
% Agree
% Agree
% Agree
Total
n=4575
% Agree
Drugs aren’t good for your health
One can become addicted
I just don’t want to use them *
One could die *
I don’t like how they would influence
my behaviour ***
96,3
94.3
95.5
93.8
86.7
94.9
94.1
92.6
94.1
86.9
94.6
93.8
92.9
90.8
80.7
93.6
93.0
90.9
89.7
79.7
94.5
93.6
92.4
91.3
82.2
Family members think that I shouldn’t
My friends don’t use drugs
They are illegal **
Medical Reasons
Religious Reasons
76.9
66.7
57.6
26.9
10.5
76.4
69.4
58.3
26.7
8.3
74.4
65.7
57.1
23.8
9.6
73.4
62.8
50.8
28.1
9.0
74.7
65.3
54.8
9.3
7.1
Reason
* p<0.05,
** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, **** p<0.0001
63
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Drugs aren't good for your health
One can become addicted
I just don't want to
One could die
I don't like how they influence my behaviour
Family members think I shoudn't
My friends don't use drugs
They are illegal
Medical Reasons
Religious Reasons
0%
Strongly agree
Figure 6.1
Somewhat agree
20%
40%
Somewhat disagree
60%
80%
100%
Strongly disagree
Top 10 Reasons Given for Not Using Drugs
(n=2894 non.drug users)
Two additional reasons were counted only for students who reported that they had at least one
close friend or family member who had used illicit drugs. A total of 730 (25%) non-drug
using students had a close acquaintance that had at least tried drugs other than tobacco and
alcohol. Of these students, 45.4% indicated that one of their reasons for not using drugs was
that a “family member or friend became sick or injured due to their use of drugs.” An
additional 37.6% reported that “a family member or friend injured someone else due to their
use of drugs.”
64
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
7. Sources of Information, Help and Treatment
Previous Sources of Information and Advice
All students were to answer questions regarding where they had received information about
drugs in the past. However, almost all of the 10.2% of the participants who left this section
blank were individuals who had never tried drugs (433/466 people). It is likely that they
suspected that this section did not apply to them, although there were no directions to this
effect specifically stated. However, some students may have felt that the questionnaire was
too long and decided to pass over this particular page.
Students were first asked about the their past sources of information. They were not asked
about whether they liked those sources, or believed or trusted the information that they
received, bur merely how often in the past they had received information from each of the 15
sources listed. The results can be seen in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1
Past Sources of Drug-related Information and Advice (n=4109)
Have you ever received information, or advice
concerning drugs from…
Your friends
Frequency of Receipt of Information or Advice
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
31.5
41.1
23.1
4.3
Your parents
32.4
40.5
20.5
7.1
Your siblings or other relatives
55.5
29.1
12.8
2.7
The university administration
87.4
9.5
2.6
0.5
The student Union
86.0
10.9
3.8
0.3
Student Health
83.0
15.4
4.3
0.4
A doctor, nurse or other health professional
outside of the university
64.9
25.6
7.8
1.5
A social worker
85.6
9.2
2.5
0.9
A free-time leader
72.3
20.3
6.1
1.4
A specialist in the drug area
48.6
37.7
10.5
3.1
The Police
43.2
45.5
9.3
2.3
A telephone help line
98.7
1.1
0.2
0.1
A web site run by an authority in the drug area
(e.g., CAN, public health)
86.3
10.8
2.4
0.5
A web site run by some non-official
organization
An association that works with drug abuse
(e.g., self-help groups)
75.8
17.6
5.4
1.3
52.7
36.7
8.9
2.4
The most frequently reported sources of information or advice were parents, friends, siblings
and other relatives, a specialist in the drug area and the police. These were top five sources of
prior information for each of the university sites. These sources are clearly more informal
than via formal authoritative sources.
65
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Few people indicated that they had received information from the university-affiliated sites
including the university administration, student Union and Student Health. Students from
Växjö and Kalmar reported receiving slightly more information from University
Administration and their Student Union than the other sites. Significantly more students at
Växjö (8.5%) than from the other sites (kalmar 4.1%, Lund 4.8%, Umeå 3.7%) indicated that
they had received drug-related information from Student Health.
People who had reported using drugs within their lives (compared with non-drug users) were
more likely to have received information/advice from friends and non-offical web sites. They
also reported receiving less information/advice from a specialist in the drug area, the police
and associations that work with drug abuse.
Preferred Future Sources of Information and Advice
Students were then asked where they would prefer to go in the future for information and
advice (see table 7.2). Students clearly were not interested in receiving any information, or
advice from their university administrations and student unions. They were however more
open to the Student Health Services as a future source. Students who had tried drugs were as
open to health services as a source of information and support as were those who had not tried
drugs. Students at Växjö (40.1%) were the most willing to accept Student Health Services as
a future source, followed by Umeå 35.3%, Lund 30.7%, and kalmar 26.5% (p<0.0001).
Students who had and had not tried drugs in the past identified the same six sites as being
most preferred. They were not in the same order, and those that had tried drugs were slightly
less approving than those who had not tried drugs.
The top five preferred sources, as cited by students who had tried drugs were:
1. a web site run by some non-official organization
2. a specialist in the drug area
3. friends
4. a heath professional outside the university
5. an association that works with drug abuse (e.g., self-help groups)
6. a web site that is run by an authority in the drug area (e.g., CAN, public health)
The top five preferred sources, as cited by students who had not tried drugs were:
1. a specialist in the drug area
2, a web site run by some non-official organization
3. an association that works with drug abuse (e.g., self-help groups)
4. a heath professional outside the university
5. a web site that is run by an authority in the drug area (e.g., CAN, public health)
6. friends
Although this information provides some information regarding where people feel safe to go,
and where they feel that they will receive the sort of information or help they would want, it
leaves out a very important point. People may prefer to get particular types of information,
help, advice or support from some agencies or people that they would not like to receive from
others. Further research needs to be done prior to making any shifts in educational policy.
66
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 7.2
Preferred Future Sources of Drug-related Information and Advice
Have you ever received
information, or advice concerning
drugs from…
All Respondents
(n=4109)
%
Respondents who
had tried drugs in
their lives
(n=1633)
%
62.5
Respondents who
had NOT tried
drugs in their lives
(n=2476)
%
50.0
Your friends
54.7
Your parents
19.6
16.2
21.7
Your siblings or other relatives
22.9
21.4
23.7
The university administration
3.2
2.5
3.6
The student union
5.5
4.6
6.2
Student health
33.0
32.0
34.2
A doctor, nurse or other health
professional outside of the
university
A social worker
55.0
54.4
56.2
19.9
18.4
21.0
9.6
8.7
10.4
A specialist in the drug area
67.2
63.1
70.0
The Police
28.8
20.8
33.3
A telephone help line
31.5
30.3
32.6
A web site run by an authority in
the drug area (e.g., CAN, public
health)
A web site run by some nonofficial organization
An association that works with
drug abuse (e.g., self-help
groups)
52.9
50.2
54.7
66.3
66.1
65.9
58.9
52.8
63.2
A free-time leader
Treatment for Alcohol and Drug Problems
Very few individuals indicated that they had ever received any form of treatment (including
behavioural therapy, counselling, and self-help groups) with respect to their alcohol or drug
problems. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, our estimates may be
underestimates, as a number of people who had not used drugs did not answer the questions in
this section. If they had preciously received treatment for alcohol, this could affect the
estimates of treatment substantially as they number of people who reported receiving any
form of treatment was so small.
Twenty people had previously received treatment for alcohol problems (0.48% of the 4153
students responding to the question). Twelve people (0.29%) had received drug treatment,
and a further nine people had received both alcohol and drug treatment. The large majority of
them received counselling as their treatment mode.
67
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Students who had never received any form of treatment, were then asked if they had ever been
told by someone else that they should seek help for an alcohol or drug problem. Only 59
people (1.3% of 4130 who answered the question) were told that they should seek help for
alcohol problems, 7 (0.17%) for drug problems and an additional 12 (0.29%) for both alcohol
and drug problems. Friends, followed by family members, most often suggested this form of
action.
68
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
8. Attitudes Towards Drug and Alcohol Use
A large number of attitudinal questions were asked in this survey. The attitudinal questions
are being reported in this chapter with three main purposes, to show what attitudes are held
amongst the group, and how they differ across the participating universities and between
students who have tried drugs and those who have not. These attitudes are also most likely
related to student demographic variables, notably sex and age among other things. This report
however will not present these results by age and sex at this time, more in-depth analyses of
students’ attitudes will be conducted later in a separate manuscript.
How Easy is it to Obtain Drugs?
Students were asked their perceptions about the ease of obtaining drugs. Cannabis was
perceived to be quite easy to buy, with 67.1% of the students indicating that it would be ‘very
easy’ or ‘rather easy’ to obtain (see Table 8.1). The next easiest drug to procure was judged
to be far less available to the average person. Thirty-four percent indicated that it would be
very or rather easy to obtain ecstasy, 32.4% amphetamines, 21.5% cocaine, and 17.8% felt it
would be relatively easy to obtain heroin.
Table 8.1
Perceived Ease of Obtaining Drugs (n=4515)
How difficult do you think it
would be for you to obtain
the following drugs, if you
wanted them?
Marijuana or hash
Perceived Ease
Very Easy
23.1
Rather
Easy
43.9
Rather
Difficult
16.8
Very
Difficult
11.7
Almost
Impossible
4.4
Amphetamines
7.5
24.9
30.6
26.4
10.7
Ecstasy
7.2
27.2
28.3
26.4
10.8
Cocaine
4.4
17.1
31.7
32.1
14.6
Heroin
3.6
14.2
29.1
35.5
17.6
Since more students in Lund reported using drugs, it would be logical that they might find it
easier to buy drugs there. But this was not the case. There was no difference in the
perception of ease in obtaining cannabis, amphetamines, or heroin by university. Students in
Umeå perceived it to be more difficult to purchase both ecstasy (29.9%) and cocaine (17.2%)
than students at the three other sites (p<0.0018 and 0071 respectively).
Students who had used drugs perceived that it was easier to purchase cannabis, amphetamine,
ecstasy and heroin than those who had not used drugs. Eighty-two percent of students who
had previously tried drugs perceived it to be relatively easy (very or rather easy) to obtain
cannabis compared with 61% of those who had never tried a drug (p<0.0001). Similarly, 37%
of students who had previously tried drugs perceived it to be relatively easy to obtain
amphetamines compared with 30.5% of those who had never tried them (p=0.0491). Finally,
15.0% of students who had previously tried drugs perceived it to be relatively easy to obtain
amphetamines compared with 18.8% of those who had never tried them (p=0.0027).
69
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
The Relative Importance of Student Alcohol and Drug Use in Context of Campus Life
Students were asked to provide their opinion on the severity of a number of social problems
that could potentially be present on their university campus. This was done in order to
determine how important the students see the issues of alcohol and drugs relative to other
issues that they may come into contact with on campus. In order to do this, students were
asked how large of a problem each of eight social problems was on their campus, and they
were to provide an answer by rating the problem on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 = not a
problem at all, and 4 = a very large problem.
Students’ alcohol use ranked first in importance among the problems listed (see Table 8.2).
The mean rating it received was 2.6 indicating that it was believed to be a rather significant
campus issue. Vandalism and theft of property ranked second, and rated quite a bit lower on
the scale. Student drug use ranked third, at virtually the same level as sexual discrimination
and sexual harassment and rape.
Table 8.2
Students’ Rating of the Severity of Various Social Problems on their University
Campus (n=4556)
Rank
Problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Student’s alcohol use
Vandalism and theft of property
Students drug use
Sexual discrimination
Sexual harassment and rape
Racism
Physical violence
Personal safety on campus
Mean
Rating 1
2.60
2.15
2.01
2.00
1.93
1.93
1.78
1.59
(SD)
(0.82)
(0.76)
(0.69)
(0.79)
(0.71)
(0.73)
(0.66)
(0.64)
Students were asked to rate how large the problem was on their campus on a scale between 1 and 4 where 1 = not a problem at all, and
4 = a very large problem.
1
There were differences between the university sites both in the order of the ranking, and in the
magnitude of the problem estimates. Table 8.3 shows how the universities varied in their
ranking of problems. Kalmar and Växjö ranked drug use as the third largest problem. The
others each ranked it fourth. Students from Kalmar tended to rank all of the problems at a
significantly lower level of magnitude than students from the other locations, this is likely a
reflection on of the University of Kalmar being a small university in a small city, and with
less drug use occurring in the university, and possibly fewer other social problems as well. In
addition, Umeå generally rated each of the problems are more severe than the other schools,
with the exception of alcohol and drug use, where Kalmar was the cite to rate them differently
than the others.
Students who had used drugs ranked drug use much lower (6) than students who did not use
drugs (3). However, the large difference in rankings was not reflected in a difference in the
magnitude of the rating that students assigned to drug use. The two groups did not rate drug
use significantly differently in terms of its importance as a problem (means ratings of 2.02 and
2.00, p=0.2220). Instead, students who had tried drugs rated the sexual discrimination, sexual
harassment and racism items significantly higher than the student who had not tried drugs
p<0.0001).
70
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 8.3
Relative Ranking of Social Problems by site
Problem
Student’s alcohol use
Vandalism and theft of property
Students drug use
Sexual discrimination
Sexual harassment and rape
Racism
Physical violence
Personal safety on campus
University
Drug Use Status
Kalmar
Växjö
Umeå
Lund
Has tried
Drugs
Rank
1
2
3
5
7
4
6
8
Rank
1
2
3
5
6
4
7
8
Rank
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
8
Rank
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
8
Rank
1
2
6
3
4
5
7
8
Has Not
tried
Drugs
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
5
7
8
At What Age is it Acceptable to for a Person to Start Smoking, Drinking and Using
Drugs?
In many cultures, adults accept that youth and young adults will behave badly from time to
time, including such behaviour as getting drunk, trying drugs, and generally taking more risks.
At the same time, society likes to set minimum ages for many of these risky behaviours in
attempt to keep the experimentation and risk-taking to a minimum. In attempt to find the
balance in these two competing forces, we asked students at what age they thought people
should be allowed to try out these contested behaviours, irrespective of what the law currently
says. This was an attempt to determine whether there would be variation in the age limit
between the behaviours depending upon their degree of social acceptability.
The question asked of the students can be seen in Table 8.4, along with the results. If students
answered that the behaviour was never acceptable (the first column of numbers in the table),
they did so instead of providing an age, thus the mean ages and modal ages presented in the
table are only for those who felt that it was acceptable to conduct the behaviour. Drinking
alcohol, both beer and spirits, was the least contested behaviour, with only 2.7% and 2.5%
indicating that these behaviours were never acceptable. This was followed by tying a
cigarette and smoking regularly, which 12.1% and 37.2% judged as never being acceptable to
do. Then we can see that as the strength and reputation of the drug increases, the acceptance
of the behaviour decreases. Interestingly enough, the modal (most commonly reported) age
stays the same for all activities. However, the mean age of acceptance of the behaviour does
alter, increasing as the level of danger is perceived to increase. Never though, does the mean
age differ too far from the legal age, where a legal age exists.
Students from Lund were more accepting when it came to trying cannabis, amphetamines and
ecstasy; they more likely to say that these behaviours are acceptable at a given age
(p<0.0001). Students from Växjö were more accepting to smoking cigarettes regularly
(p<0.001). Kalmar was more restrictive when it came to trying cannabis and amphetamines,
indicating that they should never be allowed (p<0.0001). Among students finding the
behaviours acceptable, there were only two instances when students from one university
recommended a lower or higher mean age. Students from Lund University indicated that
people should be able to try a cigarette at a younger age (mean 16.5 years as opposed to
17.05) (p<0.0001). Students at Lund also felt that people should be able to drink strong beer
at an earlier age (17.0 years) than students from the other schools (16.6 years) (p<0.0001).
71
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 8.4
The Social Clock, and When Students Judge that it is Acceptable to
Participate in Contested Behaviours
Irrespective of what the law says, at what age do
you think that it is ok for a person to do the
following things
Try a cigarette
Percent
indicating
“never OK”
13.1
Smoke regularly
Mean (SD)
Age
16.9 (1.96)
Modal
Age
18
37.2
18.3 (1.78)
18
Drink a strong beer
2.7
17.2 (1.64)
18
Drink a 4 cl glass of spirits
2.8
17.6 (1.60)
18
Try marijuana or hash
59.5
16,0 (2.18)
18
Try ecstasy
82.0
19.4 (2.47)
18
Try amphetamines
85.7
19.6 (2.66)
18
Try heroin
91.5
19.6 (2.90)
18
Students who had tried drugs were more accepting with respect to trying cigarettes, cannabis,
ecstasy, amphetamines and even heroin (but not by as large a margin as with the other
behaviours) compared with other students (p<0.001). They also recommended lower age
limits or trying smoking, smoking regularly, trying cannabis and drinking beer and spirits
(p<0.002).
General Attitudes Towards Drugs and Alcohol
A number of statements were posed, and students were required to indicate how strongly they
agreed or disagreed with them. The statements related to the role of alcohol and drugs in
university life, how large a problem Sweden has with drugs, how alcohol and drug use are
related, and what actions need to be taken in dealing with drug use ad users in society. The
results are presented in Table 8.5.
Students felt strongly that alcohol was a normal part of university life; however, the believed
that if one did not want to drink, it would still be possible to fit in. While alcohol was
believed to be a bigger social problem than drug use, there was moderate support for the idea
that alcohol use could lead to drug use, and drugs were not considered to be a normal part of
university life. Students strongly believed that early use of drugs was a sign of a much more
serious problem. They felt that prescription drugs were just as dangerous as illicit drugs and
were concerned that if it were to become permissible to use drugs, there would be a large
increase in their use. Even so, students were neither for nor against increased actions by
University Administrators to exercise more control over student drug use. There was modest
support for more treatment and control facilities in Sweden and also modest support for the
idea of compulsory treatment. Harm reduction in the form of increased access to needle
exchange facilities was not widely supported.
72
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 8.5
Students’ Agreement and Disagreement with Statements about Alcohol
and Drug Use, Abuse and Care in Sweden
Agree1
Statement
%
Drinking alcohol is a normal part of student
behaviour at university
Neither
/Nor
%
Disagree1
%
75.6
14.0
10.4
9.1
13.1
77.8
Alcohol is a bigger problem for Sweden than drugs
66.4
17.4
16.2
People who drink alcohol experiment more with
drugs than those who do not drink alcohol
57.5
22.4
20.1
If a teenager tries drugs it is a sign of a much more
serious problem
68.9
14.7
16.4
7.2
14.4
78.5
If it becomes permissible to use drugs, there will be
a large increase I their use
69.9
18.2
11.9
Misuse of prescription drugs can be as dangerous
as misuse of narcotics
90.0
6.6
3.4
The university’s administration should exercise
more control over students’ drug use
27.5
35.6
36.9
More treatment and care facilities are needed for
drug abusers in Sweden
58.2
31.8
10.0
One should require that all drug abusers seek care
54.9
27.0
18.1
There should be needle exchange programs
available throughout Sweden
47.5
31.3
21.2
One can’t have many friends in this university if
one doesn’t drink alcohol
Trying drugs is a normal part of growing up when
you are a student at university
1
There were 5 answer categories in the questionnaire. Here, the ‘Agree* category represents the sum of the two categories strongly
agree and somewhat agree, and the ‘Disagree’ category is a combination of strongly disagree and somewhat disagree.
There was a great deal of consistency across sites with respect to these attitude statements (see
Table 8.6. A few notable exceptions are of interest though. Students at Lund were more
likely to agree with the statement that drinking is a normal part of student behaviour, and
along with students from Växjö the felt more strongly that it might be difficult to find friends
and fit in, if one was not a drinker. Students from Lund also sowed slightly stronger
agreement to the statement that drugs are a normal part of university life. This was only a
mild endorsement, seems to reflect the increased prevalence of drug use at that school.
Finally, students from Lund were far more likely to see value in broadening needle exchange
program to make exchanges available throughout Sweden. This is logical, since needle
exchanges in Sweden began in Lund and Malmö. It is possible that Lund students are more
aware of what they are and how they work, than other students.
73
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 8.6
Students’ Agreement Statements about Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse and Care
in Sweden, by site (n=4543)
Statement
Kalmar
Agree
%
Drinking alcohol is a normal part of
student behaviour at university
Växjö
1
Agree
%
1
Umeå
Agree
%
1
Lund
Agree
%
1
71.0
76.0
73.4
78.2
6.8
13.3
7.1
10.2
Alcohol is a bigger problem for Sweden
than drugs
62.0
65.4
71.8
64.5
People who drink alcohol experiment
more with drugs than those who do not
drink alcohol
56.2
52.4
61.0
57.3
If a teenager tries drugs it is a sign of a
much more serious problem
76.3
71.3
71.3
64.5
Trying drugs is a normal part of
growing up when you are a student at
university
4.0
5.0
4.6
10.4
If it becomes permissible to use drugs,
there will be a large increase I their use
72.6
64.7
74.6
68.2
Misuse of prescription drugs can be as
dangerous as misuse of narcotics
89.7
88.4
91.8
89.5
The university’s administration should
exercise more control over students’
drug use
28.2
31.2
28.9
25.1
More treatment and care facilities are
needed for drug abusers in Sweden
56.8
57.9
61.1
56.8
One should require that all drug
abusers seek care
61.4
54.4
55.7
52.8
There should be needle exchange
programs available throughout Sweden
36.8
40.0
41.1
57.0
One can’t have many friends in this
university if one doesn’t drink alcohol
1
There were 5 answer categories in the questionnaire. Here, the ‘Agree* category represents the sum of the two categories strongly
agree and somewhat agree.
The use of drugs other than alcohol, and the use of prescription drugs were also examined in
relation to the attitude questions (see Table 8.7). The responses of students who used
prescription drugs were very similar to those who did not. However, the responses differed
greatly between student who did and did not use drugs other than alcohol and prescriptions.
Students who had used drugs, felt more strongly that both alcohol and drugs are a normal part
of being a university student, but they also felt more strongly that alcohol was a bigger
problem in Sweden that drugs. While drug users felt that people who drink alcohol are more
likely to experiment with drugs, they clearly did not support the statement that teenage drug
use was a sign of a much larger problem. A view directly opposed to those of students who
had not tried drugs. Those who had tried drugs were generally less supportive of intervention
by authorities to try to control drug use, and saw more value to needle exchange programs.
74
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 8.7
Students’ Agreement Statements about Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse and Care
in Sweden, by Use of Drugs (n=4543)
Statement
Used Drugs 1
last 12 months
No
Yes
Agree
%
Drinking alcohol is a normal part of
student behaviour at university
2
Agree
%
Used Prescription Drugs
last 12 months
No
Yes
2
Agree
%
2
Agree
%
2
74.5
86.9
75.6
76.1
8.9
11.5
8.9
12.3
Alcohol is a bigger problem for Sweden
than drugs
64.9
80.2
66.1
71.2
People who drink alcohol experiment
more with drugs than those who do not
drink alcohol
56.5
65.9
57.3
58.1
If a teenager tries drugs it is a sign of a
much more serious problem
71.8
40.9
69.6
60.8
5.3
24.0
6.8
11.2
If it becomes permissible to use drugs,
there will be a large increase I their use
70.5
65.4
70.1
68.0
Misuse of prescription drugs can be as
dangerous as misuse of narcotics
89.7
93.0
90.2
87.2
The university’s administration should
exercise more control over students’
drug use
29.1
11.7
27.3
27.9
More treatment and care facilities are
needed for drug abusers in Sweden
59.2
48.5
57.8
61.4
One should require that all drug
abusers seek care
57.0
35.1
55.3
51.2
There should be needle exchange
programs available throughout Sweden
45.9
61.7
46.9
53.4
One can’t have many friends in this
university if one doesn’t drink alcohol
Trying drugs is a normal part of
growing up when you are a student at
university
1
Drug use includes use of any illicit drugs, except prescription drugs. Tobacco and alcohol are not included.
There were 5 answer categories in the questionnaire. Here, the ‘Agree* category represents the sum of the two categories strongly agree and somewhat
agree.
2
Students who binge drank and those who drank more frequently responded to the statements
in the same general pattern (see Table 8.8). While there is a great deal of overlap between the
habits (i.e., the people who are binge drinking are also drinking frequently) not all binge
drinkers are regular drinkers. This said, heavy drinkers—of both types—were more likely to
think drinking is a normal part of university life, and were less likely to see a teen who tries
drugs as a troubled teen, harbouring a more serious problem. As with drug users, they were
less supportive of intrusive actions by authorities in attempt to control drug use.
75
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Table 8.8
Students’ Agreement Statements about Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse and Care
in Sweden, by Drinking Style and Frequency (n=4543)
Statement
Binge Drink 1
twice a month
No
Yes
Agree
%
2
Agree
%
Drink
weekly
No
2
Agree
%
2
Yes
Agree
%
2
Drinking alcohol is a normal part of
student behaviour at university
69.1
87.3
69.6
84.9
One can’t have many friends in this
university if one doesn’t drink alcohol
10.2
7.3
9.8
8.2
Alcohol is a bigger problem for Sweden
than drugs
67.4
64.7
67.6
64.6
People who drink alcohol experiment
more with drugs than those who do not
drink alcohol
56.9
58.4
58.5
55.9
If a teenager tries drugs it is a sign of a
much more serious problem
72.2
63.1
72.6
63.2
5.8
9.6
5.5
9.8
If it becomes permissible to use drugs,
there will be a large increase I their use
70.2
69.4
71.2
68.1
Misuse of prescription drugs can be as
dangerous as misuse of narcotics
90.9
88.6
90.7
89.1
The university’s administration should
exercise more control over students’
drug use
30.5
22.3
30.4
23.1
More treatment and care facilities are
needed for drug abusers in Sweden
62.6
50.3
63.2
50.7
One should require that all drug
abusers seek care
57.3
50.9
57.8
50.8
There should be needle exchange
programs available throughout Sweden
47.0
48.4
44.2
52.6
Trying drugs is a normal part of
growing up when you are a student at
university
1
Binge drinking is equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine on one occasion. In terms of volume of alcohol consumed, this equates to about
1-75cl bottle of while, or 5-6 (25 cl) shots of spirits, or 4 cans of strong beer, or 6 cans of light beer.
2
There were 5 answer categories in the questionnaire. Here, the ‘Agree* category represents the sum of the two categories strongly
agree and somewhat agree.
76
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
9. Alcohol and Drug Policy and Action
Does the University Have a Drug or Alcohol Policy?
This survey only contained a few questions that were policy related. Before we began, there
was a dearth of information regarding the drug use habits of university students, and a number
of myths in circulation, and the main purpose of the study was to provide descriptive
information to help fill that dearth. Therefore, the questionnaire, limited in space as it was,
could not address a wide range of policy issues.
To begin, we asked students two questions: Do you know if there is an alcohol policy at your
university? Do you know if there is a drug policy at your university? Only 10.6% of students
were aware of an alcohol policy, 1.3% indicated there was no alcohol policy and the
remaining 88% responded that they did not know whether there was one or not. Even fewer
students knew if their university had a drug policy. Only 8.4% indicated that there was a
policy, 0.6% said there was not, and 91.0% said that they did not know. The response
patterns were similar across all universities.
Are the Narcotics Sentences too Severe in Sweden?
Few students felt that the sentences for being caught using or selling narcotics in Sweden
were too severe (6.8% and 2.3% respectively). The majority felt that sentences were not
severe enough for being caught selling (52.6%), 14.6% thought they were just about right and
the remaining 30.6% did not have an opinion. With respect to the penalties for being caught
using narcotics, 38.1% felt that they were not severe enough, another 17.4% found them just
about right, and 37.7% did not hold an opinion.
Students who had used drugs during their lives held different opinions than those who had
never tried drugs (see Figure 9.1). More of them thought that the Swedish sentences for both
drug selling and using were too harsh, compared with students who had never tried drugs.
How Should the University Administration Handle Drug Use Offences on Campus?
Students were asked to indicate what they felt should happen if a student were caught using
various different drugs and on campus, and also asked about selling drugs on campus. The
answer they gave differed depending upon the type of drug involved, whether it was the first
offence or not, and depending upon whether the action was using or selling (see Figure 9.2).
77
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Percent
80
70
60
Not severe
enough
Just right
50
40
Too severe
30
20
10
0
Opinions of Drug Users
Non-Users
Drug Users
Penalties for selling
Drugs
Figure 9.1
Non Users
Penalties for
Using Drugs
Respondent’s Opinions on the Laws Regarding
the Selling of Drugs and the Use of Drugs in Sweden
Percent
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cannabis - 1st time Cannabis - 2nd time
nothing
Figure 9.2
counselling
Amphetamine
suspend from school
Cocaine
expell from school
Selling Cannabis
report to police
Students’ Views Regarding How The University
Should Handle Students Who are Caught With Drugs
78
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
If a student were caught using cannabis for the first time, a large majority of the students felt
that the individual should receive counselling, yet 31% also believed the individual should be
reported to the police. A second offence using cannabis on campus, also resulted in
counselling (62.8%), but also a merited a temporary suspension from school (32.2%), and
being reported to the police (48.8%). For a first time offence of using amphetamines on
campus, counselling was still the most highly reported punishment (66.0%), however 58.8%
indicated that the event should be reported to the police, and 31.0% indicated that the student
should be temporarily suspended from school. Caught selling cocaine, the likelihood of being
reported to the police increases further (62.8%). Students caught selling cannabis on campus
for the first time were not treated as leniently as those caught using cannabis on campus for
the first time—84.8% of the participants felt that university authorities should report the seller
to the police, only 32.1% thought that the person warranted counselling, 25.0% indicated
temporary suspension, whereas 34.8% of students felt that the seller should be expelled from
school.
In brief, student who used drugs were less likely than those who had not tried drugs to treat
the user caught for the first time as severely. They were more likely to suggest doing nothing
or recommending counselling. For an individual caught a second time, students who had used
drugs were less likely to report them to the police, and for a person caught selling on campus,
there were no discernible differences between students who had and had not tried drugs with
respect to the recommended punishments.
What would I do?
This next section is not actually about a question of policy; however, it could have policy
implications. Informal social control is very important in the area of alcohol and drugs. Often
people act in a manner that is deemed socially acceptable because they wish to avoid the
repercussions that might arise if they were to act in a less socially accepted manner. Wives
often help to control their partners drinking patterns, and keep them from drinking too much,
friends stop other friends from drinking and driving, or trying drugs, and there are many more
examples of this. In the absence of social controls, formal mechanisms of control would have
to be much more effective, and they could easily become overburdened.
It was with this idea of informal social control in mind that students were asked what they
would do if placed in a number of situations: for example, what would they do if
someone they knew were about to try marijuana for the first time, or was actually selling
drugs. The full question, as well as the students’ responses can be seen in Table 9.1.
As with the previous set of questions, the actions that the student would take were related to
both whether it was the first time the individual were doing the illegal action, how hard the
drug was, and whether the offence was using or selling. The responses that received the
strongest endorsement, when the friend was about to try marijuana for the first time was to try
to talk the person out of it (68.3%)or do nothing (16.7%): however, a few people indicated
that they would either join them or try to see that they received good quality drugs (less than
8% each). If the student that had just found out that their friend was using marijuana daily,
they were most likely to try to talk the person into seeking help (73.9% versus 11.5%), and or
inform the friend’s family or other close friends about the situation. Debut into harder drugs
warranted more severe responses. There was an increase to 85.4% of students indicating that
they would try to persuade the person not to take the drug, and 75.2% would now inform
79
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
family members and other friends about the situation. When it came to a friend found to be
selling drugs, a third of the study participants indicated that they would report their friend to
the police, and far fewer (27.5%) would involve other friends and family members in the
situation.
Table 9.1
Student’s Response to finding out that someone they know is involved with Drugs
Question: What would you do if you found out that someone you know is…
Respondents reply:
about to try
marijuana for the
first time
using marijuana
daily
about to try
amphetamines
for the first
time
selling small
amounts of
marijuana to
other adults
ask if i could join in
5.9
0.4
1.0
0.5
try to assure that the drug is of
good quality
7.6
1.6
3.8
1.1
try to persuade them not to do it
68.3
65.6
85.4
68.1
try to persuade them to seek help
11.5
73.9
28.7
24.9
report them to the police
0.9
6.3
2.9
33.3
tell the person’s family or close
friends
9.6
42.3
75.2
27.5
16.7
2.1
4.0
7.4
Nothing
80
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
10. Summary and Conclusions
Swedish Universities are a place where alcohol is consumed on a regular basis, and by a very
large proportion of the student body. Students also tend to drink heavily when they drink, as
seen in the measures of binge drinking. Their scores on the AUDIT indicate a much higher
risk of future alcohol problems than is seen in the non-student population. And indeed these
students are already experiencing a great many harms related to their drinking. These harms
could potentially cause some students to withdraw from school, their education incomplete.
Swedish Students see drinking as a part of the university experience, while the majority do not
make that connection with respect to drug use. They do not use illicit drugs to anywhere near
the level that they use alcohol, and it is also clear that as a result students do not experience
drug-related harm at a rate at all comparable to alcohol. Having said that, the findings of this
study show one of the highest rates reported for lifetime and 12-month cannabis use
(Guttormsson, 2004). Our rates are higher that that reported for in the Undomars Drogvanor
1994-2003 report even with the high proportion of females in the sample and the age make-up
of students older then the CAN sample (and rates of use decline with age).
One of the most interesting pieces of information to emerge from this study is that although a
quarter the students had used cannabis during their lives, the large majority had only used it a
few times. One hypothesis is that students who use it more often would eventually drop out
of school, thus exiting the sample, so we see a skewed view when only looking at this
functional group. An opposing possibility is that this is how it has always been, young adults
experiment, find out what is and is not for them, and discard behaviours they find
unappealing. More research is needed to address this.
Another finding of particular interest is that a number of structural elements that may act to
increase the frequency and quantity of students drinking. In particular, the findings that
students who live in student corridors and with roommates, where there is high-student
density, exhibited the highest rates of problem drinking and drug use. Also, students
participate in events on campus drink more.
It is well known that university students experience high levels of stress. Particular program
areas are strongly linked to heavy, drinking and the use of drugs. There is also a connection
between course pressure, autonomy and satisfaction and drinking; as well as the connection
between poor mental health status and both cannabis and prescription drug use. This suggests
a number of alternatives, drug use maybe a coping mechanism engaged by students, and/or
the camaraderie in some programs (perhaps related to increased social support) may result in
increased festive drinking.
These types of findings suggest that there may be some underlying structural facilitators to
students’ drinking that may be best addressed though unique approaches that bypass the
standard educational campaigns, and individually targeted approaches that have been used in
past attempts to reduce risky behaviour. Creativity and further research is needed to move
forward in this area. While this work is being done, teaching students how to become better
students may be useful to help them gain the most out of their study time.
An important issue for further investigation is the increased risk of all alcohol and drug use
and harm for students during their first 40 credits. This finding remained significantly related
81
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
to binge drinking even in the multivariate analyses when age and relocation (where lived
before starting school) were being controlled for. More work needs to be done to gain an
understanding of why these first year students are so vulnerable and what might be done to
improve their situation.
Prescription drug use and abuse by the students is another area where further research is
necessary. A more specialized study directed towards finding out what drugs people are
taking when and why is necessary before any policy issues can be addressed. Are students
self-medicating and thus do not think of their medication use as drug use? Are they trying to
obtain a high? to escape, to relax? Little is known about this area, and more needs to be
known, given the large number of people who indicated that they were using prescription
drugs.
Students indicated that they are not supportive of additional controls being put in place by the
university administration in attempt to control drinking and drug use behaviour. However, at
the same time many of them indicated that the university authorities should act to suspend,
expel or provide counselling for students who are caught using or selling drugs. Therefore it
seems that there is leeway for new policy development if the students see the benefit in it and
buy into it. However, getting the students to that state will be a challenge to achieve since less
than ten percent of the students were even aware if the university had a drug or alcohol policy
in place.
Finally, students indicated that they would be receptive to information and help from
specialists in the drug area. It seems that Mob and its drug coordinators are well placed at this
juncture to assist students.
82
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
References
Allen, J.P., Litten, R.Z., Fertig, J.B. & Barbor,T. (1997). A review of the research on the
Alcohol Use Disorders Test (AUDIT). Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,
42(4):613-619.
Edwards. P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S & Wentz, R. (2002).
Increasing Response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic Review. British Medical
Journal, 324(7347): 1183-1191.
Guttormsson, U., Andersson, B. & Hibell (2004). Undomars drogvanor 1994—2003:
Intervjuer med 16—24-åringar. [Young Adult’s drug use 1994—2003: Interviews with 16—
24 year olds] Rapport nr 75. Stockholm: Centralförbundet för alkohol- och
narkotikauppylsning.
Mangione, T.W. (1995). Mail Surveys: Improving the Quality. London: Sage Publications.
SCB (2001). Befolkningens utbildning och sysselsättning. Statistiska centralbyrån. Stockholm
SCB (2003). Befolkningens utbildning. Stockholm: Statistiska centralbyrån.
SCB (2004a). Befolkningens studiedeltagande höstterminen 2002.
http:/www.scb.se/templates/print___27814.asp. Stockholm: Statistiska centralbyrån.
SCB (2004b). Befolkningens studiedeltagande höstterminen 2002.
http:/www.scb.se/templates/print___27808.asp. Stockholm: Statistiska centralbyrån.
Trinkoff, A.M. & Storr, C.L. (1997). Collecting substance use data with an anonymous
mailed survey. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 48:1-8.
83
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Appendix A – Study Materials
Sample Reminder Card (mailings 2 & 4):
Hej! Det här är en påminnelse ifall du
inte har skickat in ditt frågeformulär.
Vi skulle uppskatta om du har
möjlighet att göra det så snart som
möjligt.
Om du redan har skickat in det – tack
så mycket!
84
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
Sample Response Card (front):
Akademiska Föreningen
Kuratorskollegiet
Lunds Universitets studentkårer
Sandgatan 2
223 50 LUND
Frankeras ej
Mottagaren
betalar portot.
Till:
Lunds universitet
809543
SVARSPOST
kundnummer 22 332349
00
228 20 LUND
(back)
Jag har returnerat frågeformuläret separat i
det bifogade svarskuvertet.
Nu behöver jag inte få några fler
påminnelser.
Jag är samtidigt med i utlottningen av:
1. En cykel
2. En biobiljett
Från
Sätt etiketten här
85
SoRAD:s rapportserie
ISSN 1650-5441
Leifman H. & Trolldal B. (2001) Alkoholkonsumtionen i Sverige under andra halvåret 2000. Stockholms Universitet:
SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 1
Leifman H. & Trolldal B. (2001) Alkoholkonsumtionen i Sverige 2000/2001. Stockholms universitet:
SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 2
Leifman H. & Trolldal B. (2002) Svenskens alkoholkonsumtion i början av 2000-talet med betoning
på 2001. Stockholms universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 3
Westfelt L. (2002) Internationella kasinon i Sundsvall och Malmö – Inställning, attityder och
förväntade effekter. Rapport från SoRADs forskningsprojekt “The community impacts of casinos”.
Stockholms universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 4
Eriksson M. & Olsson B. (2002) Alkohol- och drogförebyggande arbete på mindre arbetsplatser. En
telefonintervjuundersökning med personalchefer på 445 företag i Sverige med mellan 20-99
anställda. Stockholms universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 5
Abrahamsson M. (2002) Ungas definitioner av alkoholist, storkonsument och fyllo. Stockholms
universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 6
Palm J. (2003) Kvinnor och män i svensk missbruksbehandling: en beskrivning av personalen inom
socialtjästens missbrukarvård i Stockholms län och deras syn på missbrukarvården år 2002.
Stockholms universitet – Forskningsrapport nr. 7
Storbjörk J. (2003) Kvinnor och män i svensk missbruksbehandling: en beskrivning av personalen i
Stockholms läns landsting beroendevård och deras syn på missbrukarvården år 2001. Stockholms
universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 8
Palm J. & Storbjörk J. (2003) Kvinnor och män i svensk missbruksbehandling: en beskrivning av
patientgruppen i Stockholms läns landstings beroendevård 2002-2001. Stockholms universitet:
SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 9
Westfelt L. (2003) Spelproblem i tre svenska orter: resultat från 6000 intervjuer i Sundsvall, Malmö
och Karlstad. Stockholms universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 10
Leifman H. & Gustasson N-K. (2003) En skål för det nya millenniet. En studie av svenska folkets
alkoholkonsumtion i början av 2000-talet. Stockholms universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport
nr. 11
Fondén C., Skrinjar M., Leiknes M. & Olsson B. (2003) På vems villkor? Om möten mellan
myndigheter och narkotikabrukare. Stockholms universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 12
Lalander P. & Andreasson J. (2003) Det statliga kasinot: Mellan myt och verklighet. Stockholms
universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 13
Romelsjö A. (2003). Missbrukare med psykisk sjuklighet i Stockholms län. Stockholms universitet:
SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 14
Eriksson A., Palm J. & Storbjörk J. (2003) Kvinnor och män i svensk missbruksbehandling: en
beskrivning av klientgruppen inom socialtjänstens missbrukarvård i Stockholms län 2001-2002.
Stockholms universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 15
Westfelt L. (2004) Kasinoetablering, spelvanor och spelproblem. Situationen före och efter
etableringen av statliga kasinon i Sundsvall och Malmö. Stockholms universitet: SoRAD –
Forskningsrapport nr. 16
Sandberg B. (2004) I väntan på sämre tider? En explorativ studie av statsmaktens och centrala
aktörers intentioner, roller och förväntningar på alkoholprevention i arbetslivet. Stockholms
universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 17
Abrahamson M. (2004) Alkohol och unga i 20-årsåldern – rus, lust, problem och prevention.
Stockholms universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 18
Eriksson A. & Olsson B. (2004) Alkoholvanor bland studerande: Konsumtion, konsekvenser och
attityder bland högskolestuderande och övriga i åldrarna 19-29 år. (Ännu ej publicerad)
Stockholms universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 19
Hradilova Selin K. (red.), Eriksson M., Leifman H., Olsson, B., Ramstedt, M. Room, R., Steen, P
(2994): Svenska dryckesvanor och deras konsekvenser i början av det nya millenniet. Stockholms
universitet: SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr. 20
Bullock, S. (2004) Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle: A Study of the Attitudes, Beliefs and Use of
Alcohol and Drugs among Swedish University Students. Stockholms universitet: SoRAD –
Forskningsrapport nr. 21
Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle
A Study of the Attitudes, Beliefs and Use of Alcohol and Drugs
among Swedish University Students
Sandra Bullock
Centrum för socialvetenskaplig alkohol- och drogforskning
Stockholms universitet, Sveaplan, 106 91 Stockholm
www.sorad.su.se Telefon: 08-16 20 00
SoRAD – Forskningsrapport nr 21 – 2004
SoRADs rapportserie ISSN 1650-5441
ISBN 91-975134-7