“…Data were collected anonymously using Qualtrics Research Services, an online survey panel aggregator, which has been utilized in other peer-reviewed research studies. [28][29][30][31] Participants were recruited from 21 actively managed online research panels with more than 13.4 million registered panelists. Recruitment quotas were based on U.S. census data to reflect the age, sex, race, and ethnicity of the general U.S. population.…”
Background: The DSM-5 recognizes caffeine use disorder as a condition for further study, but there is a need to better understand its prevalence and clinical significance among the general population. Methods: A survey was conducted among an online sample of 1006 caffeine-consuming adults using demographic quotas to reflect the U.S. population. Caffeine consumption, DSM-proposed criteria for caffeine use disorder, sleep, substance use, and psychological distress were assessed. Results: Eight percent of the sample fulfilled DSM-proposed criteria for caffeine use disorder. These individuals consumed more caffeine, were younger, and were more likely to be cigarette smokers. Fulfilling caffeine use disorder criteria was associated with caffeine-related functional impairment, poorer sleep, some substance use, as well as greater depression, anxiety, and stress. Conclusions: The prevalence of caffeine use disorder among the present sample suggests that the proposed diagnostic criteria would identify only a modest percentage of the general population, and that identified individuals experience significant caffeine-related distress.
“…Data were collected anonymously using Qualtrics Research Services, an online survey panel aggregator, which has been utilized in other peer-reviewed research studies. [28][29][30][31] Participants were recruited from 21 actively managed online research panels with more than 13.4 million registered panelists. Recruitment quotas were based on U.S. census data to reflect the age, sex, race, and ethnicity of the general U.S. population.…”
Background: The DSM-5 recognizes caffeine use disorder as a condition for further study, but there is a need to better understand its prevalence and clinical significance among the general population. Methods: A survey was conducted among an online sample of 1006 caffeine-consuming adults using demographic quotas to reflect the U.S. population. Caffeine consumption, DSM-proposed criteria for caffeine use disorder, sleep, substance use, and psychological distress were assessed. Results: Eight percent of the sample fulfilled DSM-proposed criteria for caffeine use disorder. These individuals consumed more caffeine, were younger, and were more likely to be cigarette smokers. Fulfilling caffeine use disorder criteria was associated with caffeine-related functional impairment, poorer sleep, some substance use, as well as greater depression, anxiety, and stress. Conclusions: The prevalence of caffeine use disorder among the present sample suggests that the proposed diagnostic criteria would identify only a modest percentage of the general population, and that identified individuals experience significant caffeine-related distress.
“…Although research on fatalities by police 4 has benefited from crowd-sourced attempts to comprehensively document these incidents, 5 awareness of nonfatal incidents is dependent on self-reported data from civilians, which has only recently been systematically collected. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 Among these efforts, few studies have assessed the association of mental health with nonfatal police violence exposures. This assessment is needed to develop comprehensive public health interventions aimed at preventing police violence and its mental health consequences.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, police violence exposure is subject to confounding 15 because it is more common among those who have been involved in crime 6 or exposed to other forms of violence and trauma. 9 These constructs were not adequately measured in the SPPE I.…”
This general population survey study evaluates the association between past 12-month exposure to police violence and concurrent mental health symptoms among urban residents in 2 US cities.
“…Accordingly, I applaud Schwartz and Jahn for excluding from their analysis 1,670 deaths that resulted from suicides, accidents, or vehicular collisions (in a supplemental analysis, they show what the results would be with these incidents included). However, as is common practice in public health and epidemiological research, the authors framed their study as one pertaining to fatal police violence [5][6][7][8], which they define as "fatalities in police custody or involving the police that would not have occurred in the absence of police intervention." There is no disputing that when police kill, they do so via acts of physical violence.…”
In response to Gabriel Schwartz and Jaquelyn Jahn's descriptive study, "Mapping fatal police violence across U.S. metropolitan areas: Overall rates and racial/ethnic inequalities, 2013-2017," I provide three reflections. First, the framing of this issue is vitally important. Second, police-involved fatalities represent a nonrandom sample of all incidents involving police use of deadly force (i.e., physical force that causes or is likely to cause death), and unfortunately, we lack comprehensive data on use of deadly force that does not result in fatalities. Finally, to make sense of who is killed by the police, researchers must also identify who was exposed to the risk of being killed by the police.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.