Erin M Kahle1, Phil Veliz2, Sean Esteban McCabe1,2,3,4, Carol J Boyd2,3,5. 1. Center for Sexuality and Health Disparities, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Institute for Research on Women and Gender, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Addiction Center, Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sexual minority (SM) populations experience higher rates of substance use disorder (SUD) associated with increased sexual orientation-related stress. Social support may moderate the impact of stress on SUD among SM adults. This study assessed associations between social support and DSM-5 SUD by sex and sexual minority identity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from the 2012-13 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative cross-sectional sample of adults (n = 36 309) in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: SUD were defined based on the DSM-5 criteria for alcohol use (AUD), tobacco use (TUD) and drug use (DUD) disorders. Structural social support was measured as the type and frequency of kin and non-kin contact, and functional social support was measured by the Social Provision Scale. FINDINGS: SM adults had higher odds of all SUD compared to heterosexual adults [AUD = 1.535, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.782-1.844; TUD = 1.512, 95% CI = 1.234-1.854; DUD = 1.520, 95% CI = 1.139-2.028]; SM women experienced the highest proportion of all SUD (AUD = 27.1%, TUD = 29.1%, DUD = 10.9%). Type of social support was differentially associated with SUD by sex and sexual identity status. Higher social provision was associated with lower rates of AUD [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.771, 95% CI = 0.705-0.844], TUD (aOR = 0.747, 95% CI = 0.694-0.804] and DUD (aOR = 0.558, 95% CI = 0.490-0.636). Marriage was associated with lower SUD among heterosexual men (AUD, aOR = 0.500, 95% CI = 0.432-0.579; TUD, aOR = 0.603, 95% CI = 0.521-0.699; DUD, aOR = 0.504, 95% CI = 0.369-0.689) and women (AUD, aOR = 0.637, 95% CI = 0.529-0.767; TUD = 0.0.584, 95% CI = 0.507-0.671; DUD, aOR = 0.515, 95% CI = 0.372-0.712). Compared to heterosexual adults, SM women with at least one child under the age of 18 years had higher odds of TUD (aOR = 1.990, 95% CI = 1.325-2.988). SM-related discrimination was not associated with SUD among some SM subgroups, but discrimination among male heterosexually identifying individuals reporting same-sex attraction or behavior was associated AUD (aOR = 4.608, 95% CI = 1.615-13.14). CONCLUSIONS: In the United States there are significant associations between functional support (quality or provision of support) and structural support (type and frequency of social networks) and substance use disorder (SUD) which differ by sex and sexual identity status.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sexual minority (SM) populations experience higher rates of substance use disorder (SUD) associated with increased sexual orientation-related stress. Social support may moderate the impact of stress on SUD among SM adults. This study assessed associations between social support and DSM-5 SUD by sex and sexual minority identity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from the 2012-13 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative cross-sectional sample of adults (n = 36 309) in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: SUD were defined based on the DSM-5 criteria for alcohol use (AUD), tobacco use (TUD) and drug use (DUD) disorders. Structural social support was measured as the type and frequency of kin and non-kin contact, and functional social support was measured by the Social Provision Scale. FINDINGS: SM adults had higher odds of all SUD compared to heterosexual adults [AUD = 1.535, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.782-1.844; TUD = 1.512, 95% CI = 1.234-1.854; DUD = 1.520, 95% CI = 1.139-2.028]; SM women experienced the highest proportion of all SUD (AUD = 27.1%, TUD = 29.1%, DUD = 10.9%). Type of social support was differentially associated with SUD by sex and sexual identity status. Higher social provision was associated with lower rates of AUD [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.771, 95% CI = 0.705-0.844], TUD (aOR = 0.747, 95% CI = 0.694-0.804] and DUD (aOR = 0.558, 95% CI = 0.490-0.636). Marriage was associated with lower SUD among heterosexual men (AUD, aOR = 0.500, 95% CI = 0.432-0.579; TUD, aOR = 0.603, 95% CI = 0.521-0.699; DUD, aOR = 0.504, 95% CI = 0.369-0.689) and women (AUD, aOR = 0.637, 95% CI = 0.529-0.767; TUD = 0.0.584, 95% CI = 0.507-0.671; DUD, aOR = 0.515, 95% CI = 0.372-0.712). Compared to heterosexual adults, SM women with at least one child under the age of 18 years had higher odds of TUD (aOR = 1.990, 95% CI = 1.325-2.988). SM-related discrimination was not associated with SUD among some SM subgroups, but discrimination among male heterosexually identifying individuals reporting same-sex attraction or behavior was associated AUD (aOR = 4.608, 95% CI = 1.615-13.14). CONCLUSIONS: In the United States there are significant associations between functional support (quality or provision of support) and structural support (type and frequency of social networks) and substance use disorder (SUD) which differ by sex and sexual identity status.
Authors: Thomas W Valente; Anamara Ritt-Olson; Alan Stacy; Jennifer B Unger; Janet Okamoto; Steve Sussman Journal: Addiction Date: 2007-09-03 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Conall O'Cleirigh; Sannisha K Dale; Steven Elsesser; David W Pantalone; Kenneth H Mayer; Judith B Bradford; Steven A Safren Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: W June Ruan; Risë B Goldstein; S Patricia Chou; Sharon M Smith; Tulshi D Saha; Roger P Pickering; Deborah A Dawson; Boji Huang; Frederick S Stinson; Bridget F Grant Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2007-08-13 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Emily C Helminen; Jillian R Scheer; Skyler D Jackson; Cal D Brisbin; Abigail W Batchelder; Cory J Cascalheira; Tami P Sullivan Journal: Behav Med Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 3.879
Authors: Sean Esteban McCabe; Tonda L Hughes; Sarah Beal; Rebecca J Evans-Polce; Luisa Kcomt; Curtiss Engstrom; Brady T West; Phil Veliz; Kate Leary; Vita V McCabe; Carol J Boyd Journal: Child Abuse Negl Date: 2021-11-10
Authors: Rebecca J Evans-Polce; Luisa Kcomt; Philip T Veliz; Carol J Boyd; Sean Esteban McCabe Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Nhung Nguyen; Julia McQuoid; Torsten B Neilands; Sarah S Dermody; Louisa M Holmes; Pamela M Ling; Johannes Thrul Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2020-08-17
Authors: Karen F Trocki; Amy A Mericle; Laurie A Drabble; Jamie L Klinger; Cindy B Veldhuis; Tonda L Hughes; Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe Journal: Int J Alcohol Drug Res Date: 2020-10-19
Authors: Gregory R Niklason; Eric Rawls; Sisi Ma; Erich Kummerfeld; Andrea M Maxwell; Leyla R Brucar; Gunner Drossel; Anna Zilverstand Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-17 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Robin J Lewis; Kelly A Romano; Sarah J Ehlke; Cathy Lau-Barraco; Cassidy M Sandoval; Douglas J Glenn; Kristin E Heron Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Jarratt D Pytell; Nicola M Shen; Jeanne C Keruly; Catherine R Lesko; Bryan Lau; Anthony T Fojo; Marianna K Baum; Pamina M Gorbach; Marjan Javanbakht; Michele Kipke; Gregory D Kirk; Brian Mustanski; Steven Shoptaw; Susanne Siminski; Richard D Moore; Geetanjali Chander Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 4.852