Gender-specific factors predicting substance abuse: in search of health communication strategies for high risk group

Article information

J Korean Med Assoc. 2012;55(1):84-96
Publication date (electronic) : 2012 January 11
doi : https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2012.55.1.84
1School of Media & Communication, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
2Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
Corresponding author: Min Jung Cho, minjungcho907@gmail.com
Received 2011 February 26; Accepted 2011 September 25.

Abstract

The aim of this research was to assess the influence of social-demographic, psychological, health beliefs, and social environmental factors on the substance use in each gender group. Greater knowledge concerning these issues may help public health and medical policy-makers design more effective means for preventing substance abuse. Logistic regression analyses of the 2005 Korean Institute of Criminology Survey were conducted for exploring gender-specific factors in the sample of 1,332 male and 131 female prisoners. Prevalence for substance abuse was 49.5% of men and 50.1% of women. For both men and women, social environment factor such as drug use by family and friends was associated with substance abuse (odds ratio [OR], 2.738 for men; OR, 5.072 for women; P<0.01). Perceived severity (OR, 0.816 for men; OR, 0.839 for women; P<0.01) and perceived vulnerability (OR, 1.149 for men; OR, 1.215 for women; P<0.01) were also factors contributing to substance abuse. Among women, depression and impulsive behavior increased the risk of substance use. Men, on the other hand, age, no religion, and smoking were the risk factors of substance use. We find support for the current argument that there are differences in contributing factors in each gender group in regards to the risk of substance abuse. Our findings suggest that there is a need to develop appropriate health communication and policy intervention strategies for substance abuse prevention and treatment for gender specified groups at greater risk.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Validity profile of major psychological measures

(r), reversely calculated.

References

1. Lee SS. The effects of strain and depression on adults' drug abuse: an integrated approach. Korean J Criminol 2006. 18325–349.
2. Dodge K, Potocky-Tripodi M. The effectiveness of three inpatient intervention strategies for chemically dependent women. Res Soc Work Pract 2001. 1124–39.
3. Langan NP, Pelissier BM. Gender differences among prisoners in drug treatment. J Subst Abuse 2001. 13291–301.
4. Galea S, Nandi A, Vlahov D. The social epidemiology of substance use. Epidemiol Rev 2004. 2636–52.
5. Thom B. Risk-taking behaviour in men: substance use and gender [Internet] 2003. cited 2011 Dec 14. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/men_at_risk_01-04-03.pdf.
6. Merline AC, O'Malley PM, Schulenberg JE, Bachman JG, Johnston LD. Substance use among adults 35 years of age: prevalence, adulthood predictors, and impact of adolescent substance use. Am J Public Health 2004. 9496–102.
7. Grella CE, Joshi V. Gender differences in drug treatment careers among clients in the national Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1999. 25385–406.
8. Riehman KS, Hser YI, Zeller M. Gender differences in how intimate partners influence drug treatment motivation. J Drug Issues 2000. 30823–838.
9. Messina NP, Burdon WM, Prendergast ML. Assessing the needs of women in institutional therapeutic communities. J Offender Rehabil 2003. 3789–106.
10. Smart RG, Hughes PH, Johnston LD. A methodology for student drug-use surveys [Internet] 1980. cited 2011 Dec 10. Geneva: World Health Organization; Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/offset/WHO_OFFSET_50.pdf.
11. Donahue MJ, Nielsen ME. In : Paloutzian R, Park CL, eds. Religion, attitudes, and social behavior. Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality 2005. New York: Guilford Press; 274–991.
12. Engs RC, Mullen K. The effect of religion and religiosity on drug use among a selected sample of post secondary students in Scotland. Addict Res Theory 1999. 7149–170.
13. Abraham HD, Fava M. Order of onset of substance abuse and depression in a sample of depressed outpatients. Compr Psychiatry 1999. 4044–50.
14. Curran PJ. In : Rose J, Chassin L, Presson CC, Sherman SJ, eds. A latent curve framework for the study of developmental trajectories in adolescent substance use. Multivariate applications in substance use research: new methods for new questions 2000. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1–42.
15. McDowell DM, Clodfelter RC. Depression and substance abuse: considerations of etiology, comorbidity, evaluation, and treatment. Psychiatr Ann 2001. 31244–254.
16. Ross HE, Glaser FB, Germanson T. The prevalence of psychiatric disorders in patients with alcohol and other drug problems. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988. 451023–1031.
17. Griffin ML, Weiss RD, Mirin SM, Lange U. A comparison of male and female cocaine abusers. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1989. 46122–126.
18. Zilberman ML, Tavares H, Blume SB, el-Guebaly N. Substance use disorders: sex differences and psychiatric comorbidities. Can J Psychiatry 2003. 485–13.
19. Schroeder DS, Laflin MT, Weis DL. Is there a relationship between self-esteem and drug use? Methodological and statistical limitations of the research. J Drug Issues 1993. 23645–665.
20. Aguirre-Molina M, Gorman DM. Community-based approaches for the prevention of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. Annu Rev Public Health 1996. 17337–358.
21. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1977. 1385–401.
22. Luhtanen R, Crocker J. A collective self-esteem scale: self-evaluation of one's social identity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1992. 18302–318.
23. Pearlin LI, Lieberman MA, Menaghan EG, Mullan JT. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav 1981. 22337–356.
24. Paulhus DL, Selst MV. The spheres of control scale: 10 yr of research. Pers Individ Dif 1990. 111029–1036.
25. Zuckerman M. Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal level of arousal 1979. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Publications;
26. Thombs DL, Beck KH, Mahoney CA, Bromley MD, Bezon KM. Social context, sensation seeking, and teen-age alcohol abuse. J Sch Health 1994. 6473–79.
27. Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Monogr 1974. 2328–335.
28. Janz NK, Becker MH. The Health Belief Model: a decade later. Health Educ Q 1984. 111–47.
29. Becker MH. The health belief model and sick role behavior. Health Educ Monogr 1974. 2409–419.
30. Becker MH, Maiman LA, Kirscht JP, Haefner DP, Drachman RH. The health belief model and prediction of dietary compliance: a field experiment. J Health Soc Behav 1977. 18348–366.
31. Becker MH, Radius SM, Rosenstock IM, Drachman RH, Schuberth KC, Teets KC. Compliance with a medical regimen for asthma: a test of the health belief model. Public Health Rep 1978. 93268–277.
32. Kline A. Pathways into drug user treatment: the influence of gender and racial/ethnic identity. Subst Use Misuse 1996. 31323–342.
33. Primavera LH, Pascal R. A comparison of male users and nonusers of marijuana on the perceived harmfulness of drugs. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1986. 1271–77.
34. Kim JH, Yoon YM. The effects of communication experiences as negative cues to action on attitude toward drug abuse: modifying health belief model. Korean J Journal Commun Stud 2010. 545–31.
35. Kandel D, Yamaguchi K. From beer to crack: developmental patterns of drug involvement. Am J Public Health 1993. 83851–855.
36. Torabi MR, Bailey WJ, Majd-Jabbari M. Cigarette smoking as a predictor of alcohol and other drug use by children and adolescents: evidence of the "gateway drug effect". J Sch Health 1993. 63302–306.
37. Richter KP, Ahluwalia HK, Mosier MC, Nazir N, Ahluwalia JS. A population-based study of cigarette smoking among illicit drug users in the United States. Addiction 2002. 97861–869.
38. Akers RL, Krohn MD, Lanza-Kaduce L, Radosevich M. Social learning and deviant behavior: a specific test of a general theory. Am Sociol Rev 1979. 44636–655.
39. Brook JS, Whiteman M, Finch SJ, Cohen P. Young adult drug use and delinquency: childhood antecedents and adolescent mediators. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1996. 351584–1592.
40. DeWit DJ, Silverman G, Goodstadt M, Stoduto G. The construction of risk and protective factor indices for adolescent alcohol and other drug use. J Drug Issues 1995. 25837–864.
41. Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Ageton SS. Explaining delinquency and drug use 1985. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 176.
42. Hirschi T. Causes of delinquency 2002. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 309.
43. Hser YI, Anglin MD, McGlothlin W. Sex differences in addict careers. 1. Initiation of use. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1987. 1333–57.
44. Blume SB. Chemical dependency in women: important issues. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1990. 16297–307.
45. Currie SR, Patten SB, Williams JV, Wang J, Beck CA, El-Guebaly N, Maxwell C. Comorbidity of major depression with substance use disorders. Can J Psychiatry 2005. 50660–666.
46. Schaar I, Ojehagen A. Severely mentally ill substance abusers: an 18-month follow-up study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2001. 3670–78.
47. Christie KA, Burke JD Jr, Regier DA, Rae DS, Boyd JH, Locke BZ. Epidemiologic evidence for early onset of mental disorders and higher risk of drug abuse in young adults. Am J Psychiatry 1988. 145971–975.
48. Turner RJ. Social support as a contingency in psychological well-being. J Health Soc Behav 1981. 22357–367.
49. Turner RJ, Frankel BG, Levin DM. In : Simmons RG, ed. Social support: conceptualization, measurement, and implications for mental health. Research in community and mental health 1983. Greenwich: JAI Press Inc.; 67–111.

Article information Continued

Table 1

Demographical characteristics of the incarcerated population

Table 1

K, 10,000 Korean won.

a)Multiple responses for respondents were recorded.

Table 2

Multiple logistic regression in each gender group

Table 2

a)-2 Log likelihood=1028.761; Nagelkerke's-R2=0.554; Hosmer-Lemeshow test chi-square=30.458, df=8, P=0.101.

b)-2 Log likelihood=94.023; Nagelkerke's-R2=0.664; Hosmer-Lemeshow test chi-square=8.732, df=8, P=0.365.

(r), reversely calculated.