This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado - Health Science Library] On: 10 October 2014, At: 22:00 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Traffic Injury Prevention Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20
Correlates of Drug Use and Driving Among Undergraduate College Students Christine Kohn
a b
a
, Hassan Saleheen , Kevin Borrup
a c
, Steve Rogers
a c
& Garry Lapidus
a c
a
Injury Prevention Center , Connecticut Children's Medical Center/Hartford Hospital , Hartford , Connecticut b
University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy , Storrs , CT
c
University of Connecticut School of Medicine , Farmington , CT Accepted author version posted online: 14 Jun 2013.Published online: 17 Dec 2013.
Click for updates To cite this article: Christine Kohn , Hassan Saleheen , Kevin Borrup , Steve Rogers & Garry Lapidus (2014) Correlates of Drug Use and Driving Among Undergraduate College Students, Traffic Injury Prevention, 15:2, 119-124, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2013.803221 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.803221
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Traffic Injury Prevention (2014) 15, 119–124 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 1538-9588 print / 1538-957X online DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2013.803221
Correlates of Drug Use and Driving Among Undergraduate College Students CHRISTINE KOHN1,2, HASSAN SALEHEEN1, KEVIN BORRUP1,3, STEVE ROGERS1,3, and GARRY LAPIDUS1,3 1
Injury Prevention Center, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center/Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT 3 University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT
Downloaded by [University of Colorado - Health Science Library] at 22:00 10 October 2014
2
Received 19 December 2012, Accepted 4 May 2013
Objective: Drug use by drivers is a significant and growing highway safety problem. College students are an important population to understand drugged driving. The objective of this study was to examine correlates of drugged driving among undergraduate college students. Methods: We conducted an anonymous, confidential, 24-question survey at a large New England public university during the 2010–2011 academic year among undergraduates in courses that met a graduation requirement. Data include demographics; academics; housing status; lifestyle; personal values; high school/college drug use; and driving following alcohol use, drug use, or both; and as a passenger with a driver who used alcohol, drugs, or both. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests compared driver alcohol use, drug use, or both with demographic, academic, and lifestyle variables. Logistic regression analyses were performed with drugged driving as the dependent variable. Odds ratios and corresponding 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated for each of the potential explanatory variables in relation to the outcome. Results: Four hundred forty-four of 675 students completed surveys (66% participation rate). Participants were representative of the student body with a mean age of 19.4 (±1.3 years), 51 percent male, 75 percent white, and 10 percent Hispanic. Seventy-eight percent lived on campus, 93 percent had a driver’s license, and 37 percent had access to a car. Students disagreed that cannabinoids impair driving (18%) compared to other drugs (17%), stimulants (13%), depressants (11%), hallucinogens (8%), and alcohol (7%). Twenty-three percent drove after alcohol use and 22 percent drove after drug use. Forty-one percent reported having been a passenger with a driver who had been drinking and 37 percent with a driver using drugs. Drugged driving was more likely among males vs. females (30% vs. 14%, P < .01), those living off campus (34% vs. 19%, P < .01), those reporting that parties are important (33% vs. 14%, P < .01), those reporting that community service is not important (28% vs. 18%, P < .05), those reporting that religion is not important (28% vs. 14%, P < .01), and those reporting personal drug use in high school (75% vs. 14%, P < .01) and well as that their best friends used drugs in high school (42% vs. 12%, P < .01) and college (50% vs. 8%, P < .01). Those factors most associated with drugged driving included using drugs in high school (odds ratio [OR] = 9.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6–19.6) and best friends in college used drugs regularly (OR = 6.2, 95% CI: 3.4–11.6). Conclusion: Self-reported drugged driving and riding as a passenger with a drugged driver is common among subgroups of college students. The identification of undergraduate subgroups at risk for drugged driving will guide the design and implementation of traffic safety activities. Keywords: drugged driving, college students, motor vehicle crashes
Introduction Driving after drinking is a serious problem for US college students and is far more common than in other age groups or even non-college peers (LaBrie et al. 2011). Although only 13.6 percent of drivers are under the age of 25, they are involved Address correspondence to Garry Lapidus, Injury Prevention Center, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center/Hartford Hospital, 282 Washington St., Hartford, CT 06106. E-mail: glapidu@ connecticutchildrens.org
in 25.9 percent of all fatal crashes. Among teen and young adult drivers, the police-reported crash rate per million miles traveled (MMT) decreases with increasing age. For 16-yearolds the rate is 26/MMT. In comparison, the rate among 17-years-olds is 22/MMT, and among 18-, 19-, and 20- to 24-year-olds it is 15, 15, and 10/MMT, respectively. Thus, the crash rate is particularly elevated for 16- and 17-year-old high school–age students but remains elevated among college age students 18 to 24 years of age compared to the lowest rates among adult drivers 30 to 59 years old (5/MMT; Ferguson et al. 2007).
Downloaded by [University of Colorado - Health Science Library] at 22:00 10 October 2014
120 Within this elevated risk group, the population of college drivers is largely understudied, particularly with regard to the factors that influence and contribute to risky driving behaviors. Those studies that have been conducted have focused on seat belt use (Pasto and Baker 2001), alcohol consumption (Hingson et al. 2003), attitudes and intentions to drink and drive (Greening and Stoppelbein 2000), college attendance (Paschall 2003), involvement in athletics (Nattiv and Puffer 1991), and cellular phone use while driving (Seo and Torabi 2004). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA 2007), more than 16 percent of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter medications. More than 11 percent tested positive for illicit drugs (NHTSA 2007). In a study of seriously injured motor vehicle crash victims admitted to a Maryland level-1 shock–trauma center, 10 percent tested positive for opiates and 11 percent were positive for benzodiazepines (Walsh, Flegel, et al. 2004). In another study of West Virginia motor vehicle fatalities, opioid analgesics were present in 7.9 percent of deceased drivers and 7.9 percent of drivers were positive for depressants including benzodiazepines (Centers for Disease Control 2006). Another 2009 NHTSA study found that among fatally injured drivers, 18 percent tested positive for at least one drug (e.g., illicit, prescription, or overthe-counter), an increase from 13 percent in 2005 (NHTSA 2010). Substance abuse related to driving is most commonly associated with drinking and driving, yet statistics show that drugged driving is increasing (Kelly et al. 2004). Drugged driving/riding is hazardous because drugs acting on the central nervous system can alter perception, cognition, attention, balance, coordination, reaction time, and other faculties required for safe driving. The effects of specific drugs of abuse differ depending on their mechanisms of action, the amount consumed, the history of the user, and other factors (Walsh, Gier, et al. 2004). In fact, recent data suggest that the prevalence of drugged driving is now similar to drunk driving (Arria et al. 2011). The annual prevalence of drugged driving is estimated to be 2.9 percent among adults 26 years and older but is considerably higher (12.8%) in young adults 18 to 25 years old (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2010). In a recent review of 10 years of drugged driving research, the authors found that in addition to alcohol there are 6 classes of drugs that are seen most frequently in driving under the influence (DUI) arrests and motor vehicle crash victims: cannabis, benzodiazepines and other tranquilizing agents, opioids, stimulants (amphetamine, cocaine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethylamphetamine [MDMA]), antidepressants, and antihistamines (Walsh et al. 2008). The illicit drugs primarily used among 16- to 25-year-olds are marijuana, stimulants, opiates, and benzodiazepines (NHTSA 2007). However, further data on college students’ drugged driving behavior is needed to better understand the problem (Walsh, Gier, et al. 2004). Therefore, our research questions were “What are students’ attitudes about substance use and driving?” and “What are the correlates associated with substance use and driving?”
Kohn et al. Methods Participants We administered an anonymous, confidential, 24-question written survey of undergraduate students attending a large New England public university during the 2010–2011 academic years. Potential participants were approached in several required undergraduate courses in a convenience sample of 14 separate classes from March to July 2011. After a brief introduction from the professor, one of the coauthors (C.H.) described the confidential anonymous voluntary survey to those students attending class that day. Informed consent was obtained by completion of the paper-and-pencil hard-copy survey. No names were collected. After completion, student placed their surveys in a secure lockbox. The estimated length of time to complete the survey was 8 minutes and there were no incentives for participation. The demographics of the study participants were representative of the student population as a whole: male = 51 percent vs. 50 percent in the student population, white = 51 percent vs. 60 percent in the student population, and not Hispanic/Latino = 90 percent vs. 93 percent in the student population. Mean age for the student population was not available; the study population’s mean age was 19.4 years. Questionnaire Survey items were created for this study. Survey data included demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity), college status (year, major, grade point average), housing information (on- vs. offcampus housing), hometown, lifestyle information (number of roommates; close friends; involvement in Greek life, athletics, or honors program; presence of faculty confidant), amount of time (in hours) spent in various activities (studying, socializing, watching TV), and the importance of activities using a a 5-point Likert scale of extremely important to not important at all (academics, parties, arts, community service, athletics, religion). We also asked with a yes–no response format, “In high school, did you use drugs regularly (at least once per week)?” Did your best friends in high school use drugs regularly?” and “Do your best friends in college use drugs regularly?” In choosing to ask about a best friend’s history of drug use we were relying on prior work that reported on how others’ substance abuse, especially that of close friends, is among the strongest predictors of substance abuse (Jacob and Leonard 1994). History of drug use and early onset has been reported as a factor in drug abuse dependence problems (Robins and Przybeck 1985). Using a 5-point Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree, we also asked, “Do you agree or disagree that using these substances (alcohol, cannabinoids, depressants, dissociative anesthetics, hallucinogens, opioids and morphine derivatives, stimulants, and other drugs) impairs driving?” The category “other drugs” includes anabolic steroids, DXM (Dextromethorphan), and inhalants. In addition, using a 5point Likert scale of always to never we asked, “In the last 3 months how frequently have you driven immediately after using one of these substances (alcohol, cannabinoids,
Drug Use and Driving Among College Students depressants, dissociative anesthetics, hallucinogens, opioids and morphine derivatives, stimulants, and other drugs)?” The term immediately was not defined in the survey. Finally, using a 5-point Likert scale of always to never we asked, “In the last 3 months how frequently have you been a passenger with a driver who has used one of these substances (alcohol, cannabinoids, depressants, dissociative anesthetics, hallucinogens, opioids and morphine derivatives, stimulants, and other drugs)?”
Downloaded by [University of Colorado - Health Science Library] at 22:00 10 October 2014
Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Chisquare test was used to compare motor vehicle use as a driver and passenger immediately following drug use. Logistic regression analyses were performed with drugged driving as the dependent variable (1 = Yes and 0 = No). Odds ratios and corresponding 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated for each of the potential explanatory variables in relation to the outcome. A significance level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. The Institutional Review Boards of Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and the University of Connecticut approved this study.
Results Six hundred seventy-five students were invited and 444 surveys were completed (66% participation rate). Demographic, academic, and lifestyle of the respondents are shown in Table 1 and were representative of the student population as a whole. The respondent mean age = 19.4 ± 1.3 years, 51 percent male, 75 percent white, and 10 percent Hispanic. Over half (53%) reported a suburban hometown, 35 percent a rural hometown, and 11 percent an urban hometown. Nearly three quarters (73%) were freshman and sophomores. Fifty-six percent reported a grade point average of
Traffic Injury Prevention Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20
Correlates of Drug Use and Driving Among Undergraduate College Students Christine Kohn
a b
a
, Hassan Saleheen , Kevin Borrup
a c
, Steve Rogers
a c
& Garry Lapidus
a c
a
Injury Prevention Center , Connecticut Children's Medical Center/Hartford Hospital , Hartford , Connecticut b
University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy , Storrs , CT
c
University of Connecticut School of Medicine , Farmington , CT Accepted author version posted online: 14 Jun 2013.Published online: 17 Dec 2013.
Click for updates To cite this article: Christine Kohn , Hassan Saleheen , Kevin Borrup , Steve Rogers & Garry Lapidus (2014) Correlates of Drug Use and Driving Among Undergraduate College Students, Traffic Injury Prevention, 15:2, 119-124, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2013.803221 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.803221
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Traffic Injury Prevention (2014) 15, 119–124 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 1538-9588 print / 1538-957X online DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2013.803221
Correlates of Drug Use and Driving Among Undergraduate College Students CHRISTINE KOHN1,2, HASSAN SALEHEEN1, KEVIN BORRUP1,3, STEVE ROGERS1,3, and GARRY LAPIDUS1,3 1
Injury Prevention Center, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center/Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT 3 University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT
Downloaded by [University of Colorado - Health Science Library] at 22:00 10 October 2014
2
Received 19 December 2012, Accepted 4 May 2013
Objective: Drug use by drivers is a significant and growing highway safety problem. College students are an important population to understand drugged driving. The objective of this study was to examine correlates of drugged driving among undergraduate college students. Methods: We conducted an anonymous, confidential, 24-question survey at a large New England public university during the 2010–2011 academic year among undergraduates in courses that met a graduation requirement. Data include demographics; academics; housing status; lifestyle; personal values; high school/college drug use; and driving following alcohol use, drug use, or both; and as a passenger with a driver who used alcohol, drugs, or both. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests compared driver alcohol use, drug use, or both with demographic, academic, and lifestyle variables. Logistic regression analyses were performed with drugged driving as the dependent variable. Odds ratios and corresponding 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated for each of the potential explanatory variables in relation to the outcome. Results: Four hundred forty-four of 675 students completed surveys (66% participation rate). Participants were representative of the student body with a mean age of 19.4 (±1.3 years), 51 percent male, 75 percent white, and 10 percent Hispanic. Seventy-eight percent lived on campus, 93 percent had a driver’s license, and 37 percent had access to a car. Students disagreed that cannabinoids impair driving (18%) compared to other drugs (17%), stimulants (13%), depressants (11%), hallucinogens (8%), and alcohol (7%). Twenty-three percent drove after alcohol use and 22 percent drove after drug use. Forty-one percent reported having been a passenger with a driver who had been drinking and 37 percent with a driver using drugs. Drugged driving was more likely among males vs. females (30% vs. 14%, P < .01), those living off campus (34% vs. 19%, P < .01), those reporting that parties are important (33% vs. 14%, P < .01), those reporting that community service is not important (28% vs. 18%, P < .05), those reporting that religion is not important (28% vs. 14%, P < .01), and those reporting personal drug use in high school (75% vs. 14%, P < .01) and well as that their best friends used drugs in high school (42% vs. 12%, P < .01) and college (50% vs. 8%, P < .01). Those factors most associated with drugged driving included using drugs in high school (odds ratio [OR] = 9.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6–19.6) and best friends in college used drugs regularly (OR = 6.2, 95% CI: 3.4–11.6). Conclusion: Self-reported drugged driving and riding as a passenger with a drugged driver is common among subgroups of college students. The identification of undergraduate subgroups at risk for drugged driving will guide the design and implementation of traffic safety activities. Keywords: drugged driving, college students, motor vehicle crashes
Introduction Driving after drinking is a serious problem for US college students and is far more common than in other age groups or even non-college peers (LaBrie et al. 2011). Although only 13.6 percent of drivers are under the age of 25, they are involved Address correspondence to Garry Lapidus, Injury Prevention Center, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center/Hartford Hospital, 282 Washington St., Hartford, CT 06106. E-mail: glapidu@ connecticutchildrens.org
in 25.9 percent of all fatal crashes. Among teen and young adult drivers, the police-reported crash rate per million miles traveled (MMT) decreases with increasing age. For 16-yearolds the rate is 26/MMT. In comparison, the rate among 17-years-olds is 22/MMT, and among 18-, 19-, and 20- to 24-year-olds it is 15, 15, and 10/MMT, respectively. Thus, the crash rate is particularly elevated for 16- and 17-year-old high school–age students but remains elevated among college age students 18 to 24 years of age compared to the lowest rates among adult drivers 30 to 59 years old (5/MMT; Ferguson et al. 2007).
Downloaded by [University of Colorado - Health Science Library] at 22:00 10 October 2014
120 Within this elevated risk group, the population of college drivers is largely understudied, particularly with regard to the factors that influence and contribute to risky driving behaviors. Those studies that have been conducted have focused on seat belt use (Pasto and Baker 2001), alcohol consumption (Hingson et al. 2003), attitudes and intentions to drink and drive (Greening and Stoppelbein 2000), college attendance (Paschall 2003), involvement in athletics (Nattiv and Puffer 1991), and cellular phone use while driving (Seo and Torabi 2004). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA 2007), more than 16 percent of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter medications. More than 11 percent tested positive for illicit drugs (NHTSA 2007). In a study of seriously injured motor vehicle crash victims admitted to a Maryland level-1 shock–trauma center, 10 percent tested positive for opiates and 11 percent were positive for benzodiazepines (Walsh, Flegel, et al. 2004). In another study of West Virginia motor vehicle fatalities, opioid analgesics were present in 7.9 percent of deceased drivers and 7.9 percent of drivers were positive for depressants including benzodiazepines (Centers for Disease Control 2006). Another 2009 NHTSA study found that among fatally injured drivers, 18 percent tested positive for at least one drug (e.g., illicit, prescription, or overthe-counter), an increase from 13 percent in 2005 (NHTSA 2010). Substance abuse related to driving is most commonly associated with drinking and driving, yet statistics show that drugged driving is increasing (Kelly et al. 2004). Drugged driving/riding is hazardous because drugs acting on the central nervous system can alter perception, cognition, attention, balance, coordination, reaction time, and other faculties required for safe driving. The effects of specific drugs of abuse differ depending on their mechanisms of action, the amount consumed, the history of the user, and other factors (Walsh, Gier, et al. 2004). In fact, recent data suggest that the prevalence of drugged driving is now similar to drunk driving (Arria et al. 2011). The annual prevalence of drugged driving is estimated to be 2.9 percent among adults 26 years and older but is considerably higher (12.8%) in young adults 18 to 25 years old (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2010). In a recent review of 10 years of drugged driving research, the authors found that in addition to alcohol there are 6 classes of drugs that are seen most frequently in driving under the influence (DUI) arrests and motor vehicle crash victims: cannabis, benzodiazepines and other tranquilizing agents, opioids, stimulants (amphetamine, cocaine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethylamphetamine [MDMA]), antidepressants, and antihistamines (Walsh et al. 2008). The illicit drugs primarily used among 16- to 25-year-olds are marijuana, stimulants, opiates, and benzodiazepines (NHTSA 2007). However, further data on college students’ drugged driving behavior is needed to better understand the problem (Walsh, Gier, et al. 2004). Therefore, our research questions were “What are students’ attitudes about substance use and driving?” and “What are the correlates associated with substance use and driving?”
Kohn et al. Methods Participants We administered an anonymous, confidential, 24-question written survey of undergraduate students attending a large New England public university during the 2010–2011 academic years. Potential participants were approached in several required undergraduate courses in a convenience sample of 14 separate classes from March to July 2011. After a brief introduction from the professor, one of the coauthors (C.H.) described the confidential anonymous voluntary survey to those students attending class that day. Informed consent was obtained by completion of the paper-and-pencil hard-copy survey. No names were collected. After completion, student placed their surveys in a secure lockbox. The estimated length of time to complete the survey was 8 minutes and there were no incentives for participation. The demographics of the study participants were representative of the student population as a whole: male = 51 percent vs. 50 percent in the student population, white = 51 percent vs. 60 percent in the student population, and not Hispanic/Latino = 90 percent vs. 93 percent in the student population. Mean age for the student population was not available; the study population’s mean age was 19.4 years. Questionnaire Survey items were created for this study. Survey data included demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity), college status (year, major, grade point average), housing information (on- vs. offcampus housing), hometown, lifestyle information (number of roommates; close friends; involvement in Greek life, athletics, or honors program; presence of faculty confidant), amount of time (in hours) spent in various activities (studying, socializing, watching TV), and the importance of activities using a a 5-point Likert scale of extremely important to not important at all (academics, parties, arts, community service, athletics, religion). We also asked with a yes–no response format, “In high school, did you use drugs regularly (at least once per week)?” Did your best friends in high school use drugs regularly?” and “Do your best friends in college use drugs regularly?” In choosing to ask about a best friend’s history of drug use we were relying on prior work that reported on how others’ substance abuse, especially that of close friends, is among the strongest predictors of substance abuse (Jacob and Leonard 1994). History of drug use and early onset has been reported as a factor in drug abuse dependence problems (Robins and Przybeck 1985). Using a 5-point Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree, we also asked, “Do you agree or disagree that using these substances (alcohol, cannabinoids, depressants, dissociative anesthetics, hallucinogens, opioids and morphine derivatives, stimulants, and other drugs) impairs driving?” The category “other drugs” includes anabolic steroids, DXM (Dextromethorphan), and inhalants. In addition, using a 5point Likert scale of always to never we asked, “In the last 3 months how frequently have you driven immediately after using one of these substances (alcohol, cannabinoids,
Drug Use and Driving Among College Students depressants, dissociative anesthetics, hallucinogens, opioids and morphine derivatives, stimulants, and other drugs)?” The term immediately was not defined in the survey. Finally, using a 5-point Likert scale of always to never we asked, “In the last 3 months how frequently have you been a passenger with a driver who has used one of these substances (alcohol, cannabinoids, depressants, dissociative anesthetics, hallucinogens, opioids and morphine derivatives, stimulants, and other drugs)?”
Downloaded by [University of Colorado - Health Science Library] at 22:00 10 October 2014
Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Chisquare test was used to compare motor vehicle use as a driver and passenger immediately following drug use. Logistic regression analyses were performed with drugged driving as the dependent variable (1 = Yes and 0 = No). Odds ratios and corresponding 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated for each of the potential explanatory variables in relation to the outcome. A significance level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. The Institutional Review Boards of Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and the University of Connecticut approved this study.
Results Six hundred seventy-five students were invited and 444 surveys were completed (66% participation rate). Demographic, academic, and lifestyle of the respondents are shown in Table 1 and were representative of the student population as a whole. The respondent mean age = 19.4 ± 1.3 years, 51 percent male, 75 percent white, and 10 percent Hispanic. Over half (53%) reported a suburban hometown, 35 percent a rural hometown, and 11 percent an urban hometown. Nearly three quarters (73%) were freshman and sophomores. Fifty-six percent reported a grade point average of
