Frequent Binge Drinking Among US Adolescents, 1991 to 2015

Jang, Bohyun Joy; Patrick, Megan E.; Keyes, Katherine M.; Hamilton, Ava; Schulenberg, John E.

doi:10.1542/peds.2016-4023

Cited by 54 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The decline in underage drinking has occurred across a range of population subgroups, but not necessarily to the same extent. Quite a few countries have witnessed a gender convergence whereby the steeper downward trend in boys' alcohol use implies that they have approached the girls' lower prevalence of drinking [19,27,34,43,44,52,66,67,71,72]. Why the trends differ for boys and girls has not empirically scrutinised, which is another issue that future research should address.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moving to gender differences, two studies reported that girls had reduced their drinking to a greater extent than boys [35,37]. Several other found no gender differences [3,11,15,24,29,30,49,56,69], or that the reduction was greater, more consistent (across different drinking behaviours), or solely observed in boys [19,27,34,43,44,49,52,59,60,[65][66][67]71,72].…”

Section: Less Drinking Across Age and Gender?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adolescents drink less: How, who and why? A review of the recent research literature

Pape

Rossow

Brunborg

2018

Drug and Alcohol Review

165

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Less Drinking Across Age and Gender?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adolescents drink less: How, who and why? A review of the recent research literature

Pape

Rossow

Brunborg

2018

Drug and Alcohol Review

165

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…APC effects models were estimated using the Clayton & Schifflers approach [32,33], as we have performed numerous times using MTF and other data sources [34][35][36][37][38]. Modeling strategies are complicated by the fact that APC are linearly dependent variables (cohort = period-age), thus their linear effects together are over-identified.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age, period and cohort effects in frequent cannabis use among US students: 1991–2018

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims As the legal status of cannabis changes across the United States and modes of administration expand, it is important to examine the potential impact on adolescent cannabis use. This study aimed to assess changes in prevalence of frequent cannabis use in adolescents in the United States and how far this varies by age and cohort. Design Analysis of Monitoring the Future, a nationally representative annual survey of 8th‐, 10th‐ and 12th‐grade students in the United States conducted from 1991 to 2018. Setting In‐school surveys completed by US adolescents. Participants A total of 1 236 159 8th‐, 10th‐ and 12th‐graders; 51.5% female, 59.6% non‐Hispanic white, 12.3% non‐Hispanic black, 13.4% Hispanic and 14.7% other race/ethnicity. Measurements Frequent cannabis use (FCU), defined as six or more occasions in the past 30 days, stratified by sex, race/ethnicity and parental education. Findings FCU among US adolescents increased over the study period; the peak in 2010–18 was 11.4% among 18‐year‐old students. This increase was best explained by both period and cohort effects. Compared with respondents in 2005, adolescents surveyed in 2018 had period effects in FCU that were 1.6 times greater. Adolescents in younger birth cohorts (those born > 1988) had a lower increase in FCU than those born prior to 1988. Results were consistent across sex, parent education and race/ethnicity, with period effects indicating increasing FCU after 2005 and cohort effects indicating a lower magnitude of increase in more recent birth cohorts. Age and parental education disparities in FCU have increased over time, whereas race/ethnicity differences have converged over time; black students were 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.64–0.70] times as likely to use cannabis frequently as white students from 1991 to 2000, and 1.03 (95% CI = 0.98–1.09) times as likely from 2011 to 2018 (P‐value for time interaction < 0.001). Conclusions The prevalence of frequent cannabis use (FCU) increased from 1991 to 2018 among older adolescents in the United States. Racial/ethnic differences in FCU converged, whereas parental education differences have diverged.

show abstract

“…study is relevant to this question. Jang and colleagues examine frequent binge drinking among US adolescents participating in MTF and note a downward trend in cohort effects for adolescents born after 1986; that is, younger cohorts are less likely to binge drink . These cohort effects were remarkably similar in timing and magnitude to those for frequent cannabis use.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Commentary on Hamilton et al. (2019): Why aren't cannabis use rates declining among US adolescents?

Grucza

Borodovsky

2019

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequent Binge Drinking Among US Adolescents, 1991 to 2015

Abstract: Recent declines in adolescent FBD have been driven by period and cohort effects. Attention is warranted for the slower declines in FBD seen among African American adolescents since 2007, a narrowing difference by sex, and a growing gap by SES.

Cited by 54 publications

References 47 publications

Adolescents drink less: How, who and why? A review of the recent research literature

Adolescents drink less: How, who and why? A review of the recent research literature

Age, period and cohort effects in frequent cannabis use among US students: 1991–2018

Commentary on Hamilton et al. (2019): Why aren't cannabis use rates declining among US adolescents?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About