Robert W S Coulter1,2,3,4, Hee-Jin Jun5, Jerel P Calzo5, Nhan L Truong5, Christina Mair1, Nina Markovic2,6, Brittany M Charlton7,8,9,10, Anthony J Silvestre2,11, Ron Stall1,2, Heather L Corliss5,9. 1. Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Center for LGBT Health Research, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Science, Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA. 6. Department of Dental Public Health, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 7. Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 11. Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: We estimated sexual-orientation differences in alcohol use trajectories during emerging adulthood, and tested whether alcohol use trajectories mediated sexual-orientation differences in alcohol use disorders (AUDs). DESIGN: Longitudinal self-reported survey data from the Growing Up Today Study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 12 493 participants aged 18-25 during the 2003, 2005, 2007 or 2010 surveys. MEASUREMENTS: Stratified by gender, longitudinal latent class analyses estimated alcohol use trajectories (using past-year frequency, quantity and binge drinking from 2003 to 2010). Multinomial logistic regression tested differences in trajectory class memberships by sexual orientation [comparing completely heterosexual (CH) participants with sexual-minority subgroups: mainly heterosexual (MH), bisexual (BI) and gay/lesbian (GL) participants]. Modified Poisson regression and mediation analyses tested whether trajectories explained sexual-orientation differences in AUDs (past-year DSM-IV abuse/dependence in 2010). FINDINGS: Six alcohol use trajectory classes emerged for women and five for men: these included heavy (23.5/36.9% of women/men), moderate (31.8/26.4% of women/men), escalation to moderately heavy (9.7/12.0% of women/men), light (17.0% for women only), legal (drinking onset at age 21; 11.1/15.7% of women/men) and non-drinkers (7.0/9.1% of women/men). Compared with CH women, MH and BI women had higher odds of being heavy, moderate, escalation to moderately heavy and light drinkers versus non-drinkers (odds ratios = 2.02-3.42; P-values < 0.01-0.04). Compared with CH men, MH men had higher odds of being heavy, moderate and legal drinkers versus non-drinkers (odds ratios = 2.24-3.34; P-values < 0.01-0.01). MH men and women, BI women and GLs had higher risk of AUDs in 2010 than their same-gender CH counterparts (risk ratios = 1.34-2.17; P-values < 0.01). Alcohol use trajectories mediated sexual-orientation differences in AUDs for MH and GL women (proportion of effect mediated = 30.8-31.1%; P-values < 0.01-0.02), but not for men. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, throughout emerging adulthood, several sexual-minority subgroups appear to have higher odds of belonging to heavier alcohol use trajectories than completely heterosexuals. These differences partially explained the higher risk of alcohol use disorders among mainly heterosexual and gay/lesbian women but not among sexual-minority men.
AIMS: We estimated sexual-orientation differences in alcohol use trajectories during emerging adulthood, and tested whether alcohol use trajectories mediated sexual-orientation differences in alcohol use disorders (AUDs). DESIGN: Longitudinal self-reported survey data from the Growing Up Today Study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 12 493 participants aged 18-25 during the 2003, 2005, 2007 or 2010 surveys. MEASUREMENTS: Stratified by gender, longitudinal latent class analyses estimated alcohol use trajectories (using past-year frequency, quantity and binge drinking from 2003 to 2010). Multinomial logistic regression tested differences in trajectory class memberships by sexual orientation [comparing completely heterosexual (CH) participants with sexual-minority subgroups: mainly heterosexual (MH), bisexual (BI) and gay/lesbian (GL) participants]. Modified Poisson regression and mediation analyses tested whether trajectories explained sexual-orientation differences in AUDs (past-year DSM-IV abuse/dependence in 2010). FINDINGS: Six alcohol use trajectory classes emerged for women and five for men: these included heavy (23.5/36.9% of women/men), moderate (31.8/26.4% of women/men), escalation to moderately heavy (9.7/12.0% of women/men), light (17.0% for women only), legal (drinking onset at age 21; 11.1/15.7% of women/men) and non-drinkers (7.0/9.1% of women/men). Compared with CH women, MH and BI women had higher odds of being heavy, moderate, escalation to moderately heavy and light drinkers versus non-drinkers (odds ratios = 2.02-3.42; P-values < 0.01-0.04). Compared with CH men, MHmen had higher odds of being heavy, moderate and legal drinkers versus non-drinkers (odds ratios = 2.24-3.34; P-values < 0.01-0.01). MHmen and women, BI women and GLs had higher risk of AUDs in 2010 than their same-gender CH counterparts (risk ratios = 1.34-2.17; P-values < 0.01). Alcohol use trajectories mediated sexual-orientation differences in AUDs for MH and GLwomen (proportion of effect mediated = 30.8-31.1%; P-values < 0.01-0.02), but not for men. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, throughout emerging adulthood, several sexual-minority subgroups appear to have higher odds of belonging to heavier alcohol use trajectories than completely heterosexuals. These differences partially explained the higher risk of alcohol use disorders among mainly heterosexual and gay/lesbian women but not among sexual-minority men.
Authors: Jeffrey J Sacks; Katherine R Gonzales; Ellen E Bouchery; Laura E Tomedi; Robert D Brewer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: A E Field; C A Camargo; C B Taylor; C S Berkey; A L Frazier; M W Gillman; G A Colditz Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: B Taylor; H M Irving; F Kanteres; R Room; G Borges; C Cherpitel; T Greenfield; J Rehm Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Mark L Hatzenbuehler; Katie A McLaughlin; Katherine M Keyes; Deborah S Hasin Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Amelia E Talley; Paul A Gilbert; Jason Mitchell; Jeremy Goldbach; Brandon D L Marshall; Debra Kaysen Journal: Drug Alcohol Rev Date: 2016-04-13
Authors: Robert W S Coulter; Hee-Jin Jun; Nhan Truong; Christina Mair; Nina Markovic; M Reuel Friedman; Anthony J Silvestre; Ron Stall; Heather L Corliss Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Heather L McCauley; Kelley A Jones; Dana L Rofey; Taylor A Reid; Elizabeth Miller; Robert W S Coulter Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Philip T Veliz; Sean Esteban McCabe; Tonda L Hughes; Bethany G Everett; Billy A Caceres; Cynthia Arslanian-Engoren Journal: Ann LGBTQ Public Popul Health Date: 2020
Authors: Hee-Jin Jun; Megan Webb-Morgan; Jennifer K Felner; Jennifer P Wisdom; Sean J Haley; S Bryn Austin; Laura M Katuska; Heather L Corliss Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 4.492