-
PDF
- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Shelby R Goodwin, Dezarie Moskal, Russell M Marks, Ashton E Clark, Lindsay M Squeglia, Daniel J O Roche, A Scoping Review of Gender, Sex and Sexuality Differences in Polysubstance Use in Adolescents and Adults, Alcohol and Alcoholism, Volume 57, Issue 3, May 2022, Pages 292–321, https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agac006
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
Polysubstance use is a common, problematic behavior that increases risk of harm to self and others. Research suggests that rates may vary based on gender, sex and sexuality. Understanding the current state of this literature may inform prevention and treatment of polysubstance use, leading to reduced public health burden.
This review aimed to synthesize research on gender, sex and sexuality differences in polysubstance use in adults and adolescents.
A scoping review was conducted using all EBSCO databases, PubMed and Google Scholar to identify articles examining the effects of gender, sex and sexuality on polysubstance use. Polysubstance use was defined broadly as the use of any combination of substances over any time period and included licit (alcohol, tobacco) and illicit substances, concurrent and simultaneous use, from lifetime to daily use and use at any frequency. Studies were considered if they were published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1990 and October 2020 and were written in English. Publicly available data sources were also utilized to fully capture prevalence data that has not been published elsewhere.
Findings were mostly inconsistent and often conflicting. Only two findings were generally consistent: adult men were overall more likely to report polysubstance use than adult women, and sexual and gender minorities report more frequent polysubstance use than non-minorities.
Research has been unable to clearly elucidate differences in polysubstance use prevalence and patterns according to gender, sex and sexuality. Several recommendations are offered to advance future research and address limitations of current research.
INTRODUCTION
Substance use and substance use disorder (SUD) are pervasive problems. More than 5% of individuals aged 15 or older worldwide (~283 million people) meet criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD), and rates are similar for those 12 or older in the U.S. (~14.8 million people or 5.4% of the total U.S. population; World Health Organization, 2018; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019). The prevalence of SUD (disorders with illicit drugs, including cannabis and not including alcohol and tobacco) is less common but still present in 0.7% of individuals aged 15–64 worldwide and in ~8.1 million Americans 12 and older (~3.0% of the total U.S. population; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019; World Drug Report, 2020). Almost 17.5% of individuals 15 or older worldwide use tobacco, and a higher prevalence rate has been observed in Americans 12 or older (58.8 million or 21.5% of the total U.S. population; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020).
People experience a myriad of harmful effects from substance use, including impaired relationships, vehicle accidents and incarceration (Columbia University National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 2010; Karjalainen et al., 2012; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Substance use is also associated with a variety of mental and physical illnesses (Walker and Druss, 2017; Degenhardt et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2018). Moreover, there are indirect economic effects, including healthcare costs and lost productivity that collectively total $730 billion annually in the U.S. (U.S. Department of Justice and National Drug Intelligence Center, 2011; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). Although single substance use is common, many people report using multiple substances throughout their lives (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019). Data from the NSDUH indicate that, within the same 1-year period, Americans aged 12 or older who reported consuming alcohol also used other substances at least once: 32.7% used any tobacco product, 22.2% used cannabis and 11.2% used other illicit drugs (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019).
Polysubstance use broadly refers to the use of more than one substance over a specified time period (Connor et al., 2014). Use is generally categorized as either concurrent (i.e. two or more substances within a specified, but not necessarily overlapping, timeframe) or simultaneous (i.e. two or more substances within a pharmacologically overlapping timeframe; Olthuis et al., 2013; Connor et al., 2014). Accordingly, in this review, the term ‘polysubstance use’ refers to any combination of substances over any time period, specifying the substance combinations and timeframe whenever possible. Polysubstance use is related to considerable problems beyond the relative associations of single substance use. For instance, adolescents who have used multiple substances in the past year (i.e. combinations of alcohol, cannabis and tobacco) are more than twice as likely to engage in problematic behaviors (e.g. starting fights, lying) than adolescents who have used only alcohol in the past year (Silveira et al., 2019). Furthermore, polysubstance use translates into direct risk for SUD diagnoses. The risk of meeting DSM-IV illicit substance dependence (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) by young adulthood was higher in adolescents who concurrently use alcohol, cannabis and cigarettes (3.2 times more likely than nonusers) than adolescents who use alcohol only (1.3 times more likely than nonusers; Moss et al., 2014). Similarly, adults who met criteria for AUD and SUD (vs. AUD only) were more likely to meet criteria for other conditions such as mood disorder (Saha et al., 2018).
Gender, sex and sexuality differences in polysubstance use
Gender, sex and sexuality are likely critical factors to understanding polysubstance use rates and patterns. Sex refers to biological differences between men and women. Gender refers to socially determined roles along dimensions of masculinity and femininity as well as personal identity within the context of these norms (National Institutes of Health, no date; Hyde et al., 2019). Sexuality encompasses identity, attraction and behavior toward others (Bailey et al., 2016).
There are gender and sex differences in substance use rates and patterns (for review, see McHugh et al., 2018b). In addition, research suggests substance use behavior may also vary as a function of sexuality (McCabe et al., 2003; Marshal et al., 2008). Until recently (e.g. Demant et al., 2017; McHugh et al., 2018a), substance use literature has generally failed to differentiate between sex, gender and sexuality, focusing primarily on heterosexual men, which limits understanding of substance use relationships with these constructs (Zimmerman, 1980; Kinney et al., 1981; Johnson and Fee, 1994; Baird, 1999; Mazure and Jones, 2015). In fact, there have been no attempts to synthesize the literature examining the roles of gender, sex and sexuality as they relate to polysubstance use. As such, the current review aims to fill this gap, focusing in particular on gender and sexual minority subgroups (National Institutes of Health, Office of Womens Health, no date; Auerbach, 1992; Schroeder and Snowe, 1994; Feldman et al., 2019).
Current review aims
In summary, although polysubstance use is a common and concerning phenomenon in adolescents and adults, a clear understanding of potential differences based on gender, sex and sexuality has been slow to emerge. A synthesis of the current state of the literature on the relationship between these factors and polysubstance use may facilitate the identification of critical next steps in prevention and treatment development. The current scoping review aims to advance the literature by (a) providing a critical overview and synthesis of potential sex, gender and sexuality differences in polysubstance use in adolescents and adults, with a focus on how these relationships may differ according to varying operationalizations of polysubstance use and (b) providing concrete suggestions for improving research in this area.
METHODS
The current review was conducted using published guidelines for scoping studies (Arksey and O'Malley, 2005). Studies were first electronically searched between September 2019 and October 2019 using all EBSCO databases, PubMed and Google Scholar. Backward reference searching of relevant articles (e.g. reviews) was also conducted, and a repeated search was conducted in October 2020 to find additional studies. Studies were considered eligible if they were published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1990 and October 2020 and were written in English. Publicly available data sources were also referenced to capture additional prevalence information that has not been published elsewhere. Specifically, NSDUH offers datafiles for individual years and data concatenated from 2002 to 2018. For the purposes of the current review, the Public Use Data Analysis System was consulted with crosstab analyses run on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Concatenated Public Use File (2002 to 2018). For each analysis, ‘Rc-Age Category Record (3 Levels)’ [CATAG2] was set as the column variable, ‘Imputation Revised Gender’ [IRSEX] was set as the control and the row variable was first set as ‘Rc-Illicit Drug and Alcohol Use – Pst Yr’ [ILLANDALC] then ‘Rc-Illicit Drug and Alcohol Dep or Abuse – Past Year’ [UDPYILAAL]. Column percentages were first gathered for male and female respondents aged 12–17 then aged 26 and older who engaged in past year illicit drug and alcohol use, then for respondents who met for past year illicit drug and alcohol dependence/abuse (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive, no date).
Three searches were conducted. First, articles on polysubstance use and gender in the general population were reviewed. Search terms included ‘polysubstance use,’ ‘multiple substance use,’ ‘dual substance use,’ ‘concurrent use’ and ‘simultaneous use’ to encapsulate polysubstance use, and ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ as possible search terms for gender. This search yielded 2470 results from EBSCO, 21,719 from PubMed and 2490 from Google Scholar. Results were sorted by relevance and were reviewed using titles, abstracts, and indexing fields until results became generally repetitive or no longer relevant. Studies involving exclusively one gender, examining psychiatric or physical comorbidity or exclusively examining multiple drugs separately (versus concurrent or simultaneous use) were excluded. Studies were included if they examined concurrent or simultaneous polysubstance use and reported the main effects of its relation to gender or sex. In any instances where the interpretation of the main effects was not clear, attempts were made to clarify with the contact authors. Any questions about eligibility criteria were discussed and resolved within the research team.
To locate studies that did not use gender as an indexing field, a second search was conducted using only the aforementioned polysubstance use search terms. This search yielded 24,365 results from EBSCO, 537,873 from PubMed and 3690 from Google Scholar. The review process mirrored that of search one, except studies examining concurrent or simultaneous use were examined with greater detail, particularly in the results section, to identify any gender-related analyses. Any study that included the main effects of sex or gender in primary or secondary analyses was included. Eligible articles from searches one and two were then arranged by the primary age group featured: adult population (age 18 or over) or adolescent population.
A third search was conducted to locate polysubstance use studies featuring gender and sexual minorities. The search consisted of polysubstance use terms and terms encapsulating gender and sexual minorities (‘gender minorities,’ ‘sexual minorities,’ ‘LGBT,’ ‘LGBTQ’ and ‘transgender’). This search yielded 149 results from EBSCO, 368 from PubMed and 42 from Google Scholar. Again, the review process mirrored that of search one, except that articles were not divided by age group due to the small number of results. Across all three searches, a total of 63 articles were eligible: 18 adolescent studies, 37 adult studies and 8 sexual and gender minority studies.
RESULTS
Table 1 provides a summary of the findings from the literature review (N = 63). Results are displayed in three categories of polysubstance use consistent with the search strategy: adolescent, adult and gender and sexual minorities (adolescent and adult inclusive). In general, across adolescent, adult and gender and sexual minority studies of polysubstance use, operationalizations of polysubstance use varied widely, in terms of the frequency measured, the type of polysubstance use (concurrent or simultaneous), substance specificity and measures of frequency. Of the 63 studies, 38% studied sex (n = 24) and 63% studied gender (n = 40); only one study measured both sex and gender (Day et al., 2017).
Characteristics and gender/sex difference and sexuality difference results of included studies (N = 63)
Author (Year) . | Design . | Sample . | Polysubstance use measurement . | Sex/ gender . | Covariates in sex/gender model . | Gender/sex differences results . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adolescents (n = 18) | ||||||
Banks et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Age, income |
|
Banks et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Collins et al., 1998 | Longitudinal |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: age; race/ethnicity; income; parent education/ occupation; social influences; family, school and church factors; problem behavior/lifestyle factors | Model 1:
|
Epstein et al., 1999 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent: - lifetime and past month A, T, Ca, each coded as 0–3 total substances
| Gender | Ethnicity |
|
Evans et al., 2020a | Repeated cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None | - Compared with girls, boys were more likely to be in the PSU class (lifetime A + Ci, drunkenness+I) versus no/low use class (no substance use or lifetime A only) for first 3 cohorts (1988–1991, 1995–1998, 2002–2005) - No significant sex differences in the 2008–2011 cohort |
Font-Mayolas et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Göbel et al., 2016a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Hoffman et al., 2000 | Repeated cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: demographics and survey year Model 3: individual substance use rates: average daily A, past 30-day use frequency of Ca/Co respectively and product of A and drug use frequency |
|
Kokkevi et al., 2014 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Merrin and Leadbeater, 2018a | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Patrick et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | Race/ethnicity, parent education, high school grades, whether the student had definite plans to graduate from a 4-year college, frequency of evenings out with friends, truancy, past year use of any illicit drugs other than Ca |
|
Patrick et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: race/ethnicity, college plans, grades, parents in the home, religiosity, parental education, geographic region, cohort and A, T, Ca use |
|
Petrou and Kupek, 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | School year, ethnicity and socioeconomic quintile |
|
Purcell et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, parental education, parental marital status, household income |
|
Rose et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race/ethnicity, free/reduced lunch, number of parents living at home |
|
Smit et al., 2002b | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Terry-McElrath et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: year, psychosocial and demographic variables Model 3: year, all psychosocial, demographic and substance use measures |
|
Zuckermann et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: study year/sample and race |
|
Adults (n = 37) | ||||||
Back et al., 2010c | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Bassiony and Seleem, 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Beswick et al., 2001 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Bunting et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, years of education, race, unemployment, homelessness, county lived in, financial strain, injection drug use, physical health, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, stress-related health consequences |
|
Byqvist, 2006 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Chan et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, sexuality, psychological distress, language, income, socio-economic index for area |
|
Earleywine and Newcomb, 1997 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Egan et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: academic classification, race, parents’ education level, GPA, sensation seeking, past 30-day A, past 30-day HED, past 30-day T, past 30-day, Ca, past 30-day illicit drug use, past-year prescription drug use (excluding Stim) |
|
Evans et al., 2017d | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Evans et al., 2017e | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Falk et al., 2008 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Fernández-Calderón et al., 2015a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Fernández-Calderón et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, sexual orientation, education, employment, socioeconomic status, country of residence, last recreational setting attended |
|
Grant & Harford, 1990f | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Grant & Harford, 1990g | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Griesler et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Grigsby and Howard, 2019c | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Husky et al., 2007 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race, education, marital status and age |
|
Jackson et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
John et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent: - past-year SUD variables: T, A, Ca, Co, prescription Op/H, and Oth (i.e. S, Meth, prescription Stim/Am, Hal, I, other nonspecific drugs), coded as yes/no, subjected to LCA | Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, marital status, study site |
|
Linden-Carmichael et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | None |
|
Maffli and Astudillo, 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
McCabe and West, 2017 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: race, age, marital status, income, geographical region, sexual identity, past-year nicotine dep, past-year anxiety disorders, past-year mood disorders, lifetime personality disorders | Model 1 and Model 2: In all models, men were at increased odds of developing multiple SUDs and having 3-year persistence of multiple SUDs |
McCabe et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, race, anxiety disorder, mood disorder, personality disorder, eating disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder | Model 1 and Model 2:
|
Meshesha et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Midanik et al., 2007 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: age, ethnicity, education, income, relationship status, days drinking 5+ drinks |
|
Morley et al., 2015a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Age, country of residence, sexual orientation, qualifications, occupational status, living status, past-year T, past-year A, AUDIT score, desire to use drugs less, treatment for anxiety and/or depression, personality disorder, involvement in violent incident, sexual risk-taking, emergency treatment |
|
Orsini et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Pakula et al., 2009 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Roche et al., 2019 | Event-level |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | Age, ethnicity, source study, and person-means for each predictor variable |
|
Ruglass et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: Ca, race, SES, age, health rating, anxiety, stress level, simultaneous A and cig use, days A consumed, other substance use |
|
Sadeh et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Saha et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Race/ethnicity, age, marital status, education, income, Urbanicity, region |
|
Schauer et al., 2015 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Year, age and race/ethnicity |
|
Subbaraman and Kerr, 2015 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | Age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, relationship status, 5+ in a day, avg daily number drinks |
|
Tucker et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race, ethnicity, marital status, education, age, income, social functioning, mental functioning, physical functioning |
|
Votaw et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, race/ethnicity, total number of motives for misuse of Tr, misuse behaviors and past month psychological distress score |
|
Sexual and gender minorities (n = 8) | ||||||
Coulter et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Day et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender and sex | Model 1: none Model 2: sexual identity, race and ethnicity, and age Model 3: victimization, depressive symptoms, perceived risk of substance use | Models 1, 2 and 3: transgender youth are at heightened risk for PSU compared with nontransgender peers Model 3: men reported higher odds of PSU |
Dermody, 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | race/ethnicity, sex and age |
|
Jun et al., 2019 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, region of residence |
|
Kecojevic et al., 2017 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | race/ethnicity, region of residence, report of an adult or sibling living in the household who drinks A |
|
Nguyen et al., 2021 | Event-level |
| Simultaneous:
| sex | age, sex, education, race, psychological distress |
|
Schauer et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Depressive symptoms, perceived stress, satisfaction with life, sensation seeking, Big 5 personality traits |
|
Silveira et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent: -past year T, A, Ca, NP Stim, Sed, and Tr, Co, Meth, speed, H, I, solvents, Hal, coded as yes/no; subjected to LCA | Gender | Class proportions, sensation seeking, age, race/ethnicity, urban, grade, parent education, past year internalizing problems, past year externalizing problems, sexual orientation |
|
Author (Year) . | Design . | Sample . | Polysubstance use measurement . | Sex/ gender . | Covariates in sex/gender model . | Gender/sex differences results . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adolescents (n = 18) | ||||||
Banks et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Age, income |
|
Banks et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Collins et al., 1998 | Longitudinal |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: age; race/ethnicity; income; parent education/ occupation; social influences; family, school and church factors; problem behavior/lifestyle factors | Model 1:
|
Epstein et al., 1999 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent: - lifetime and past month A, T, Ca, each coded as 0–3 total substances
| Gender | Ethnicity |
|
Evans et al., 2020a | Repeated cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None | - Compared with girls, boys were more likely to be in the PSU class (lifetime A + Ci, drunkenness+I) versus no/low use class (no substance use or lifetime A only) for first 3 cohorts (1988–1991, 1995–1998, 2002–2005) - No significant sex differences in the 2008–2011 cohort |
Font-Mayolas et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Göbel et al., 2016a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Hoffman et al., 2000 | Repeated cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: demographics and survey year Model 3: individual substance use rates: average daily A, past 30-day use frequency of Ca/Co respectively and product of A and drug use frequency |
|
Kokkevi et al., 2014 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Merrin and Leadbeater, 2018a | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Patrick et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | Race/ethnicity, parent education, high school grades, whether the student had definite plans to graduate from a 4-year college, frequency of evenings out with friends, truancy, past year use of any illicit drugs other than Ca |
|
Patrick et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: race/ethnicity, college plans, grades, parents in the home, religiosity, parental education, geographic region, cohort and A, T, Ca use |
|
Petrou and Kupek, 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | School year, ethnicity and socioeconomic quintile |
|
Purcell et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, parental education, parental marital status, household income |
|
Rose et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race/ethnicity, free/reduced lunch, number of parents living at home |
|
Smit et al., 2002b | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Terry-McElrath et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: year, psychosocial and demographic variables Model 3: year, all psychosocial, demographic and substance use measures |
|
Zuckermann et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: study year/sample and race |
|
Adults (n = 37) | ||||||
Back et al., 2010c | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Bassiony and Seleem, 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Beswick et al., 2001 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Bunting et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, years of education, race, unemployment, homelessness, county lived in, financial strain, injection drug use, physical health, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, stress-related health consequences |
|
Byqvist, 2006 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Chan et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, sexuality, psychological distress, language, income, socio-economic index for area |
|
Earleywine and Newcomb, 1997 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Egan et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: academic classification, race, parents’ education level, GPA, sensation seeking, past 30-day A, past 30-day HED, past 30-day T, past 30-day, Ca, past 30-day illicit drug use, past-year prescription drug use (excluding Stim) |
|
Evans et al., 2017d | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Evans et al., 2017e | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Falk et al., 2008 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Fernández-Calderón et al., 2015a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Fernández-Calderón et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, sexual orientation, education, employment, socioeconomic status, country of residence, last recreational setting attended |
|
Grant & Harford, 1990f | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Grant & Harford, 1990g | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Griesler et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Grigsby and Howard, 2019c | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Husky et al., 2007 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race, education, marital status and age |
|
Jackson et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
John et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent: - past-year SUD variables: T, A, Ca, Co, prescription Op/H, and Oth (i.e. S, Meth, prescription Stim/Am, Hal, I, other nonspecific drugs), coded as yes/no, subjected to LCA | Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, marital status, study site |
|
Linden-Carmichael et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | None |
|
Maffli and Astudillo, 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
McCabe and West, 2017 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: race, age, marital status, income, geographical region, sexual identity, past-year nicotine dep, past-year anxiety disorders, past-year mood disorders, lifetime personality disorders | Model 1 and Model 2: In all models, men were at increased odds of developing multiple SUDs and having 3-year persistence of multiple SUDs |
McCabe et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, race, anxiety disorder, mood disorder, personality disorder, eating disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder | Model 1 and Model 2:
|
Meshesha et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Midanik et al., 2007 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: age, ethnicity, education, income, relationship status, days drinking 5+ drinks |
|
Morley et al., 2015a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Age, country of residence, sexual orientation, qualifications, occupational status, living status, past-year T, past-year A, AUDIT score, desire to use drugs less, treatment for anxiety and/or depression, personality disorder, involvement in violent incident, sexual risk-taking, emergency treatment |
|
Orsini et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Pakula et al., 2009 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Roche et al., 2019 | Event-level |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | Age, ethnicity, source study, and person-means for each predictor variable |
|
Ruglass et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: Ca, race, SES, age, health rating, anxiety, stress level, simultaneous A and cig use, days A consumed, other substance use |
|
Sadeh et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Saha et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Race/ethnicity, age, marital status, education, income, Urbanicity, region |
|
Schauer et al., 2015 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Year, age and race/ethnicity |
|
Subbaraman and Kerr, 2015 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | Age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, relationship status, 5+ in a day, avg daily number drinks |
|
Tucker et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race, ethnicity, marital status, education, age, income, social functioning, mental functioning, physical functioning |
|
Votaw et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, race/ethnicity, total number of motives for misuse of Tr, misuse behaviors and past month psychological distress score |
|
Sexual and gender minorities (n = 8) | ||||||
Coulter et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Day et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender and sex | Model 1: none Model 2: sexual identity, race and ethnicity, and age Model 3: victimization, depressive symptoms, perceived risk of substance use | Models 1, 2 and 3: transgender youth are at heightened risk for PSU compared with nontransgender peers Model 3: men reported higher odds of PSU |
Dermody, 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | race/ethnicity, sex and age |
|
Jun et al., 2019 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, region of residence |
|
Kecojevic et al., 2017 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | race/ethnicity, region of residence, report of an adult or sibling living in the household who drinks A |
|
Nguyen et al., 2021 | Event-level |
| Simultaneous:
| sex | age, sex, education, race, psychological distress |
|
Schauer et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Depressive symptoms, perceived stress, satisfaction with life, sensation seeking, Big 5 personality traits |
|
Silveira et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent: -past year T, A, Ca, NP Stim, Sed, and Tr, Co, Meth, speed, H, I, solvents, Hal, coded as yes/no; subjected to LCA | Gender | Class proportions, sensation seeking, age, race/ethnicity, urban, grade, parent education, past year internalizing problems, past year externalizing problems, sexual orientation |
|
Note. A = alcohol, Am = amphetamines, AUD = alcohol use disorder, AUDIT-C = Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption, AY = academic year, BA = binge alcohol/drinking, Benz = benzodiazepines, Bup = buprenorphine, Ca = cannabis, Co = cocaine/crack, CNS = central nervous system drugs, primarily amphetamines, D = downers, Dep = dependence, DUD = drug use disorder, E = ecstasy, e-cig = electronic cigarette, H = heroin, Hal = hallucinogens, HD = heavy drinking, HED = heavy episodic drinking, I = inhalant, LCA = latent class analysis, LPA = latent profile analysis, LSD = lysergic acid diethylamide, M = medication, Meth = methamphetamine, NM = non-medical, NR = not reported, NP = not as prescribed/not prescribed, Oth = other drug/other illicit drug, Op = Opioids/opiates, PS = prescription stimulants, PSP = Phencyclidine, PSU = polysubstance use/user, S = sedatives, Stim = stimulants, SUD = substance use disorder, T = tobacco/cigarette, Tr = tranquilizers, U = uppers, UD = use disorder, yo = years old.
Sex/Gender column refers to whether sex and/or gender were included in the analysis examining its association with polysubstance use. The term(s) is written in boldface italicized text if it was a primary aim of the study analyses (vs. secondary aim). Study type is specific to how the gender/sex differences were analyzed.
aStudy used LCA/LPA or latent mixture modeling to identify classes of substance use/PSU; for details regarding classes, see original article.
bStudy used homogeneity analysis through alternating least squares (HOMALS) to identify Clusters of substance users who resemble each other.
cStudy includes participants under the age of 18, but Mage > 18; therefore, article included in adult section of table.
dArticle title is: Gender differences in the effects of childhood adversity on alcohol, drug and polysubstance-related disorders.
eArticle title is: Gender and race/ethnic differences in the persistence of alcohol, drug and poly-substance use disorders.
fArticle title is: Concurrent and simultaneous use of alcohol with cocaine: results of national survey.
gArticle title is: Concurrent and simultaneous use of alcohol with sedatives and with tranquilizers: results of a national survey.
Characteristics and gender/sex difference and sexuality difference results of included studies (N = 63)
Author (Year) . | Design . | Sample . | Polysubstance use measurement . | Sex/ gender . | Covariates in sex/gender model . | Gender/sex differences results . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adolescents (n = 18) | ||||||
Banks et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Age, income |
|
Banks et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Collins et al., 1998 | Longitudinal |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: age; race/ethnicity; income; parent education/ occupation; social influences; family, school and church factors; problem behavior/lifestyle factors | Model 1:
|
Epstein et al., 1999 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent: - lifetime and past month A, T, Ca, each coded as 0–3 total substances
| Gender | Ethnicity |
|
Evans et al., 2020a | Repeated cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None | - Compared with girls, boys were more likely to be in the PSU class (lifetime A + Ci, drunkenness+I) versus no/low use class (no substance use or lifetime A only) for first 3 cohorts (1988–1991, 1995–1998, 2002–2005) - No significant sex differences in the 2008–2011 cohort |
Font-Mayolas et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Göbel et al., 2016a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Hoffman et al., 2000 | Repeated cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: demographics and survey year Model 3: individual substance use rates: average daily A, past 30-day use frequency of Ca/Co respectively and product of A and drug use frequency |
|
Kokkevi et al., 2014 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Merrin and Leadbeater, 2018a | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Patrick et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | Race/ethnicity, parent education, high school grades, whether the student had definite plans to graduate from a 4-year college, frequency of evenings out with friends, truancy, past year use of any illicit drugs other than Ca |
|
Patrick et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: race/ethnicity, college plans, grades, parents in the home, religiosity, parental education, geographic region, cohort and A, T, Ca use |
|
Petrou and Kupek, 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | School year, ethnicity and socioeconomic quintile |
|
Purcell et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, parental education, parental marital status, household income |
|
Rose et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race/ethnicity, free/reduced lunch, number of parents living at home |
|
Smit et al., 2002b | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Terry-McElrath et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: year, psychosocial and demographic variables Model 3: year, all psychosocial, demographic and substance use measures |
|
Zuckermann et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: study year/sample and race |
|
Adults (n = 37) | ||||||
Back et al., 2010c | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Bassiony and Seleem, 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Beswick et al., 2001 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Bunting et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, years of education, race, unemployment, homelessness, county lived in, financial strain, injection drug use, physical health, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, stress-related health consequences |
|
Byqvist, 2006 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Chan et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, sexuality, psychological distress, language, income, socio-economic index for area |
|
Earleywine and Newcomb, 1997 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Egan et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: academic classification, race, parents’ education level, GPA, sensation seeking, past 30-day A, past 30-day HED, past 30-day T, past 30-day, Ca, past 30-day illicit drug use, past-year prescription drug use (excluding Stim) |
|
Evans et al., 2017d | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Evans et al., 2017e | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Falk et al., 2008 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Fernández-Calderón et al., 2015a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Fernández-Calderón et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, sexual orientation, education, employment, socioeconomic status, country of residence, last recreational setting attended |
|
Grant & Harford, 1990f | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Grant & Harford, 1990g | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Griesler et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Grigsby and Howard, 2019c | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Husky et al., 2007 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race, education, marital status and age |
|
Jackson et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
John et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent: - past-year SUD variables: T, A, Ca, Co, prescription Op/H, and Oth (i.e. S, Meth, prescription Stim/Am, Hal, I, other nonspecific drugs), coded as yes/no, subjected to LCA | Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, marital status, study site |
|
Linden-Carmichael et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | None |
|
Maffli and Astudillo, 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
McCabe and West, 2017 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: race, age, marital status, income, geographical region, sexual identity, past-year nicotine dep, past-year anxiety disorders, past-year mood disorders, lifetime personality disorders | Model 1 and Model 2: In all models, men were at increased odds of developing multiple SUDs and having 3-year persistence of multiple SUDs |
McCabe et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, race, anxiety disorder, mood disorder, personality disorder, eating disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder | Model 1 and Model 2:
|
Meshesha et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Midanik et al., 2007 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: age, ethnicity, education, income, relationship status, days drinking 5+ drinks |
|
Morley et al., 2015a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Age, country of residence, sexual orientation, qualifications, occupational status, living status, past-year T, past-year A, AUDIT score, desire to use drugs less, treatment for anxiety and/or depression, personality disorder, involvement in violent incident, sexual risk-taking, emergency treatment |
|
Orsini et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Pakula et al., 2009 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Roche et al., 2019 | Event-level |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | Age, ethnicity, source study, and person-means for each predictor variable |
|
Ruglass et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: Ca, race, SES, age, health rating, anxiety, stress level, simultaneous A and cig use, days A consumed, other substance use |
|
Sadeh et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Saha et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Race/ethnicity, age, marital status, education, income, Urbanicity, region |
|
Schauer et al., 2015 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Year, age and race/ethnicity |
|
Subbaraman and Kerr, 2015 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | Age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, relationship status, 5+ in a day, avg daily number drinks |
|
Tucker et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race, ethnicity, marital status, education, age, income, social functioning, mental functioning, physical functioning |
|
Votaw et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, race/ethnicity, total number of motives for misuse of Tr, misuse behaviors and past month psychological distress score |
|
Sexual and gender minorities (n = 8) | ||||||
Coulter et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Day et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender and sex | Model 1: none Model 2: sexual identity, race and ethnicity, and age Model 3: victimization, depressive symptoms, perceived risk of substance use | Models 1, 2 and 3: transgender youth are at heightened risk for PSU compared with nontransgender peers Model 3: men reported higher odds of PSU |
Dermody, 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | race/ethnicity, sex and age |
|
Jun et al., 2019 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, region of residence |
|
Kecojevic et al., 2017 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | race/ethnicity, region of residence, report of an adult or sibling living in the household who drinks A |
|
Nguyen et al., 2021 | Event-level |
| Simultaneous:
| sex | age, sex, education, race, psychological distress |
|
Schauer et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Depressive symptoms, perceived stress, satisfaction with life, sensation seeking, Big 5 personality traits |
|
Silveira et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent: -past year T, A, Ca, NP Stim, Sed, and Tr, Co, Meth, speed, H, I, solvents, Hal, coded as yes/no; subjected to LCA | Gender | Class proportions, sensation seeking, age, race/ethnicity, urban, grade, parent education, past year internalizing problems, past year externalizing problems, sexual orientation |
|
Author (Year) . | Design . | Sample . | Polysubstance use measurement . | Sex/ gender . | Covariates in sex/gender model . | Gender/sex differences results . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adolescents (n = 18) | ||||||
Banks et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Age, income |
|
Banks et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Collins et al., 1998 | Longitudinal |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: age; race/ethnicity; income; parent education/ occupation; social influences; family, school and church factors; problem behavior/lifestyle factors | Model 1:
|
Epstein et al., 1999 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent: - lifetime and past month A, T, Ca, each coded as 0–3 total substances
| Gender | Ethnicity |
|
Evans et al., 2020a | Repeated cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None | - Compared with girls, boys were more likely to be in the PSU class (lifetime A + Ci, drunkenness+I) versus no/low use class (no substance use or lifetime A only) for first 3 cohorts (1988–1991, 1995–1998, 2002–2005) - No significant sex differences in the 2008–2011 cohort |
Font-Mayolas et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Göbel et al., 2016a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Hoffman et al., 2000 | Repeated cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: demographics and survey year Model 3: individual substance use rates: average daily A, past 30-day use frequency of Ca/Co respectively and product of A and drug use frequency |
|
Kokkevi et al., 2014 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Merrin and Leadbeater, 2018a | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Patrick et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | Race/ethnicity, parent education, high school grades, whether the student had definite plans to graduate from a 4-year college, frequency of evenings out with friends, truancy, past year use of any illicit drugs other than Ca |
|
Patrick et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: race/ethnicity, college plans, grades, parents in the home, religiosity, parental education, geographic region, cohort and A, T, Ca use |
|
Petrou and Kupek, 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | School year, ethnicity and socioeconomic quintile |
|
Purcell et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, parental education, parental marital status, household income |
|
Rose et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race/ethnicity, free/reduced lunch, number of parents living at home |
|
Smit et al., 2002b | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Terry-McElrath et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: year, psychosocial and demographic variables Model 3: year, all psychosocial, demographic and substance use measures |
|
Zuckermann et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: study year/sample and race |
|
Adults (n = 37) | ||||||
Back et al., 2010c | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Bassiony and Seleem, 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Beswick et al., 2001 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Bunting et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, years of education, race, unemployment, homelessness, county lived in, financial strain, injection drug use, physical health, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, stress-related health consequences |
|
Byqvist, 2006 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Chan et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, sexuality, psychological distress, language, income, socio-economic index for area |
|
Earleywine and Newcomb, 1997 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Egan et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: academic classification, race, parents’ education level, GPA, sensation seeking, past 30-day A, past 30-day HED, past 30-day T, past 30-day, Ca, past 30-day illicit drug use, past-year prescription drug use (excluding Stim) |
|
Evans et al., 2017d | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Evans et al., 2017e | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Falk et al., 2008 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Fernández-Calderón et al., 2015a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Fernández-Calderón et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, sexual orientation, education, employment, socioeconomic status, country of residence, last recreational setting attended |
|
Grant & Harford, 1990f | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Grant & Harford, 1990g | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Griesler et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Grigsby and Howard, 2019c | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Husky et al., 2007 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race, education, marital status and age |
|
Jackson et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
John et al., 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent: - past-year SUD variables: T, A, Ca, Co, prescription Op/H, and Oth (i.e. S, Meth, prescription Stim/Am, Hal, I, other nonspecific drugs), coded as yes/no, subjected to LCA | Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, marital status, study site |
|
Linden-Carmichael et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | None |
|
Maffli and Astudillo, 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
McCabe and West, 2017 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: race, age, marital status, income, geographical region, sexual identity, past-year nicotine dep, past-year anxiety disorders, past-year mood disorders, lifetime personality disorders | Model 1 and Model 2: In all models, men were at increased odds of developing multiple SUDs and having 3-year persistence of multiple SUDs |
McCabe et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: age, race, anxiety disorder, mood disorder, personality disorder, eating disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder | Model 1 and Model 2:
|
Meshesha et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Midanik et al., 2007 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: none Model 2: age, ethnicity, education, income, relationship status, days drinking 5+ drinks |
|
Morley et al., 2015a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Age, country of residence, sexual orientation, qualifications, occupational status, living status, past-year T, past-year A, AUDIT score, desire to use drugs less, treatment for anxiety and/or depression, personality disorder, involvement in violent incident, sexual risk-taking, emergency treatment |
|
Orsini et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | None |
|
Pakula et al., 2009 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Roche et al., 2019 | Event-level |
| Simultaneous:
| Sex | Age, ethnicity, source study, and person-means for each predictor variable |
|
Ruglass et al., 2020 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Sex | Model 1: none Model 2: Ca, race, SES, age, health rating, anxiety, stress level, simultaneous A and cig use, days A consumed, other substance use |
|
Sadeh et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | None |
|
Saha et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Race/ethnicity, age, marital status, education, income, Urbanicity, region |
|
Schauer et al., 2015 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Year, age and race/ethnicity |
|
Subbaraman and Kerr, 2015 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent and Simultaneous:
| Gender | Age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, relationship status, 5+ in a day, avg daily number drinks |
|
Tucker et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Race, ethnicity, marital status, education, age, income, social functioning, mental functioning, physical functioning |
|
Votaw et al., 2020a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Age, race/ethnicity, total number of motives for misuse of Tr, misuse behaviors and past month psychological distress score |
|
Sexual and gender minorities (n = 8) | ||||||
Coulter et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | None |
|
Day et al., 2017 | Cross-sectional |
| Simultaneous:
| Gender and sex | Model 1: none Model 2: sexual identity, race and ethnicity, and age Model 3: victimization, depressive symptoms, perceived risk of substance use | Models 1, 2 and 3: transgender youth are at heightened risk for PSU compared with nontransgender peers Model 3: men reported higher odds of PSU |
Dermody, 2018a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | race/ethnicity, sex and age |
|
Jun et al., 2019 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | Model 1: sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, region of residence |
|
Kecojevic et al., 2017 | Longitudinal |
| Concurrent:
| Gender | race/ethnicity, region of residence, report of an adult or sibling living in the household who drinks A |
|
Nguyen et al., 2021 | Event-level |
| Simultaneous:
| sex | age, sex, education, race, psychological distress |
|
Schauer et al., 2013 | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent:
| Sex | Depressive symptoms, perceived stress, satisfaction with life, sensation seeking, Big 5 personality traits |
|
Silveira et al., 2019a | Cross-sectional |
| Concurrent: -past year T, A, Ca, NP Stim, Sed, and Tr, Co, Meth, speed, H, I, solvents, Hal, coded as yes/no; subjected to LCA | Gender | Class proportions, sensation seeking, age, race/ethnicity, urban, grade, parent education, past year internalizing problems, past year externalizing problems, sexual orientation |
|
Note. A = alcohol, Am = amphetamines, AUD = alcohol use disorder, AUDIT-C = Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption, AY = academic year, BA = binge alcohol/drinking, Benz = benzodiazepines, Bup = buprenorphine, Ca = cannabis, Co = cocaine/crack, CNS = central nervous system drugs, primarily amphetamines, D = downers, Dep = dependence, DUD = drug use disorder, E = ecstasy, e-cig = electronic cigarette, H = heroin, Hal = hallucinogens, HD = heavy drinking, HED = heavy episodic drinking, I = inhalant, LCA = latent class analysis, LPA = latent profile analysis, LSD = lysergic acid diethylamide, M = medication, Meth = methamphetamine, NM = non-medical, NR = not reported, NP = not as prescribed/not prescribed, Oth = other drug/other illicit drug, Op = Opioids/opiates, PS = prescription stimulants, PSP = Phencyclidine, PSU = polysubstance use/user, S = sedatives, Stim = stimulants, SUD = substance use disorder, T = tobacco/cigarette, Tr = tranquilizers, U = uppers, UD = use disorder, yo = years old.
Sex/Gender column refers to whether sex and/or gender were included in the analysis examining its association with polysubstance use. The term(s) is written in boldface italicized text if it was a primary aim of the study analyses (vs. secondary aim). Study type is specific to how the gender/sex differences were analyzed.
aStudy used LCA/LPA or latent mixture modeling to identify classes of substance use/PSU; for details regarding classes, see original article.
bStudy used homogeneity analysis through alternating least squares (HOMALS) to identify Clusters of substance users who resemble each other.
cStudy includes participants under the age of 18, but Mage > 18; therefore, article included in adult section of table.
dArticle title is: Gender differences in the effects of childhood adversity on alcohol, drug and polysubstance-related disorders.
eArticle title is: Gender and race/ethnic differences in the persistence of alcohol, drug and poly-substance use disorders.
fArticle title is: Concurrent and simultaneous use of alcohol with cocaine: results of national survey.
gArticle title is: Concurrent and simultaneous use of alcohol with sedatives and with tranquilizers: results of a national survey.
Adolescent polysubstance use
Adolescent concurrent polysubstance use
Findings on gender differences in adolescent concurrent polysubstance use are contradictory. According to 2002–2018 concatenated data from NSDUH (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive, no date) of almost 255 million respondents aged 12 or older, 10.3% of boys and 11.9% of girls aged 12–17 used both alcohol and at least one non-alcohol, non-tobacco recreational substance concurrently in the previous year, reflecting a nominally higher prevalence of polysubstance use for girls than for boys. Similarly, 0.8% of boys and 0.9% of girls met criteria for both past year AUD and a past year illicit SUD (SAMHSA, 2019). These polysubstance use rates are consistent with the national Monitoring the Future findings of single substance use trends which note that the gender gap (boys having historically higher rates) has narrowed, and even reversed with some grades and specific substances (e.g. past year cannabis use in 8th graders) as more girls are endorsing substance use behaviors (Miech et al., 2020).
Conversely, several polysubstance use studies report that adolescent boys have greater odds than adolescent girls of concurrently using multiple substances (Epstein et al., 1999; Göbel et al., 2016; Petrou and Kupek, 2018; Rose et al., 2018; Zuckermann et al., 2019). These differing findings may be due to the year(s) of data collection because of the aforementioned changing trends in adolescent substance use (Miech et al., 2020). Indeed, one study of Canadian 9th through 12th graders found that although girls were less likely to use two substances between 2013 and 2016, they were more likely to do so between 2017 and 2018 (Zuckermann et al., 2019). Yet, after accounting for year and race, boys were more likely to report polysubstance use at all levels (i.e. use of 2, 3 and 4 substances), demonstrating how many additional factors may influence the relationship between gender and polysubstance use. A study of Swedish 15- and 16-years-olds found that boys were more likely than girls to engage in concurrent polysubstance use between 1988 and 2005, but for the cohort assessed between 2008 and 2011, no gender differences emerged (Evans et al., 2020). Furthermore, one study of 662 Canadian adolescents (Mage = 15) found no difference between boys and girls regarding their allocation into a class of high probability past year concurrent polysubstance use (Merrin and Leadbeater, 2018). It is critical to note that the studies cited in this paragraph report the relationship between gender and polysubstance use substances without distinguishing between substance types being co-administered. Given these inconsistent findings, we speculate that studying polysubstance as a dichotomous construct that encompasses any combination of substances may be inadequate to accurately capture gender differences in adolescent polysubstance use.
Additional information emerges when specifying concurrent polysubstance use drug combinations. Multiple studies found boys more likely than girls to concurrently use combinations of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and cocaine (Smit et al., 2002; Font-Mayolas et al., 2013; Banks et al., 2017), but one study of midwestern American juvenile detainees found no gender differences for combinations of cannabis with alcohol and/or other substances (Banks et al., 2019). Another American multi-site study of 4129 adolescents found boys more likely than girls to endorse past month concurrent alcohol, tobacco and cannabis use, but results were no longer significant after adjusting for age, household income, parent education and parent marital status (Purcell et al., 2020). Analyses conducted in over 100,000 16-year-old across 35 European countries found that concurrent use of most combinations of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other illicit drug use was greater in boys, but girls outnumbered boys for concurrent use that included tranquilizers or sedatives (Kokkevi et al., 2014). Analyses examining the concurrent use of alcohol and tobacco were mixed. One national study of 14,667 Americans aged 12–18 found boys more likely than girls (Banks et al., 2017), another study of 1501 Spanish high school students found girls more likely than boys (Font-Mayolas et al., 2013) and a Dutch national study of 6236 students aged 12–16 found no gender differences in their concurrent use (Smit et al., 2002). Taken together, gender differences in polysubstance use may vary according to specific substance combinations; however, definitive findings and directionality of such differences are inconclusive given the limited research.
Adolescent simultaneous polysubstance use
Although most adolescent studies investigate concurrent substance use, some do examine simultaneous use. Concatenated NSDUH data of American adolescents aged 12–17 between 2002 and 2018 show no gender differences in prevalence of using an illicit drug during their most recent alcohol consumption (1.7% for both boys and girls; SAMHSA, 2019). Simultaneous polysubstance use research in adolescents typically concerns simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use (SAC). Overall, boys exhibit higher odds and have a higher frequency of SAC use than girls (Collins et al., 1999; Hoffman et al., 2000; Terry-McElrath et al., 2013; Patrick et al., 2018, 2019). However, two of these studies conducted additional analyses controlling for overall substance use frequency and showed that girls were then more likely to engage in any SAC use (Hoffman et al., 2000; Terry-McElrath et al., 2013). This discrepancy suggests that although boys may engage in SAC use more frequently than girls, this difference may be more reflective of boys’ higher base usage rate of each substance, which, in turn, increases the probability that both substances will be used on the same day. Therefore, although girls engage in SAC use less frequently than boys, girls may still be more likely to simultaneously use alcohol and cannabis during any single episode of substance use.
Adult polysubstance use
Adult concurrent polysubstance use
Compared with results from adolescent studies, adult studies of gender differences in polysubstance use, examined as a single category of any combination of substances, have produced more consistent findings. According to the concatenated data from NSDUH between 2002 and 2018, 16.3% of men and 11.2% of women aged 26 and older reported using both alcohol and at least one illicit drug in the previous year (SAMHSA, 2019). Men are more likely than women to engage in concurrent polysubstance use (e.g. compared with use of a single substance or no substance use) across several populations: the general population, incarcerated individuals, those who engage in heavy drinking episodes and individuals seeking substance use treatment (Falk et al., 2008; Morley et al., 2015; Schauer et al., 2015; Meshesha et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2019; Grigsby and Howard, 2019; Bassiony and Seleem, 2020). Rates of polysubstance use have grown faster for men than for women over the 21st century (Schauer et al., 2015). Rates of multiple SUDs are higher for men than for women as indicated by 2002–2018 concatenated NSDUH data, with 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women meeting criteria for both past year AUD and a past year illicit SUD (SAMHSA, 2019). Men are also more likely than women to have multiple SUDs compared with a single SUD or no SUDs in general populations (Falk et al., 2008; Evans et al., 2017a; McCabe and West, 2017; McCabe et al., 2017; John et al., 2018) and in individuals in SUD treatment (Fernández-Calderón et al., 2015). Furthermore, men have higher rates of maintaining these multiple SUDs over 3 years (Evans et al., 2017b). When categorizing people who engage in multiple substance use as a single group, epidemiological data consistently find men engaging in polysubstance use more than women.
When polysubstance use is examined more precisely with different combinations of substances, adult gender differences are less consistent. A Swedish national survey found that men were more likely to include cannabis in their concurrent polysubstance use, whereas women were more likely to include opiates (Byqvist, 2006). In a Swiss sample of people receiving treatment for SUDs, some substance combinations were more common in men, such as combining alcohol with cannabis, cocaine, opioids or tobacco and combining cocaine with opioids; combinations like alcohol and hypnotics-sedatives were more common in women (Maffli and Astudillo, 2018). Some studies also found men more likely than women to concurrently use combinations of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis as well as meet diagnostic criteria for combinations of alcohol, nicotine and cannabis use disorders (Saha et al., 2018; Tucker et al., 2020), whereas another study found women with AUD were more likely to use tobacco than men (Husky et al., 2007). However, a number of studies found men more likely than women to use certain specific combinations: concurrent cocaine use in those who use prescription opioids (Griesler et al., 2019), combinations of binge drinking, cannabis use and prescription opioid use in adults who misuse tranquilizer medications (Votaw et al., 2020), combinations of heavy opioid, prescription drug and cocaine use along with the use of other substances (Sadeh et al., 2020) and combinations of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and prescription drugs in college student athletes (Orsini et al., 2018). Similarly, in incarcerated Americans who endorsed pre-incarceration opioid use and same-day polysubstance use (one year prior), men were more likely to be classified in polysubstance groups characterized by greater past month, near daily alcohol use, buprenorphine use and co-use of stimulants and opioids, compared with individuals classified as having no >15 days of drug use over the past month (Bunting et al., 2020).
Other studies have found substance combinations equally likely across genders. For instance, no gender differences were found in the likelihood of concurrent alcohol and cannabis use (Subbaraman and Kerr, 2015; Jackson et al., 2020), or the likelihood of alcohol use in those who endorsed past year prescription opioid use (Back et al., 2010). In addition, two previously mentioned studies had gender difference findings that varied according to specific combinations analyzed. Although Byqvist (2006) observed gender differences in concurrent polysubstance combinations that included cannabis and opiates separately, they did not observe any gender differences in other substance use in those who endorsed alcohol as their primary substance. Similarly, although Falk et al. (2008) found that in those who met criteria for AUD, men were more likely to have a comorbid cannabis use disorder, there were no gender differences in the odds of having any other comorbid use disorder. Despite population-level gender differences in polysubstance use, these differences vary according to substance combinations, making it difficult to synthesize findings.
Adult simultaneous polysubstance use
Similar to concurrent polysubstance use, gender differences in simultaneous use vary depending on the substance combinations considered. Recounting their last drinking session, 4.2% of men and 2.0% of women aged 26 or older endorse using an illicit drug while consuming alcohol, according to concatenated NSDUH data between 2002 and 2018 (SAMHSA, 2019). Similarly, higher simultaneous polysubstance use rates are found in men than women for combinations of alcohol with cigarettes (Earleywine and Newcomb, 1997), cannabis (Midanik et al., 2007, for general population; Pakula et al., 2009; Linden-Carmichael et al., 2019; Jackson et al., 2020, for treatment-seeking population), cocaine (Grant and Harford, 1990a), sedatives (Grant and Harford, 1990b), tranquilizers (Grant and Harford, 1990b in the general population; Beswick et al., 2001 in patients receiving opiate use treatment), nonmedical prescription stimulants (significant in a bivariate model; Egan et al., 2013) and any illicit drugs in a general adult population (Midanik et al., 2007). Higher simultaneous cannabis and tobacco use rates in men have also been reported (Ruglass et al., 2020). In contrast, a Canadian study found no gender differences in the odds of reported simultaneous alcohol and cocaine use in the previous year (Pakula et al., 2009), and another study found no gender differences in past year SAC use (Subbaraman and Kerr, 2015). Conversely, women report higher rates of simultaneous use of crack and opiates in adults in treatment for opiate use (Beswick et al., 2001). Women were also more likely to be categorized as an extensive polysubstance use/stimulant group (characterized by ecstasy, alcohol, amphetamines and cannabis; mean of 4.7 substances used), compared with a low polysubstance use group (characterized by alcohol and cannabis use; mean of 2.3 substances used) based on use at the last attended party in a U.S. general population (Fernández-Calderón et al., 2020). An event-level study of non-treatment seeking individuals examined same-day alcohol, tobacco and cannabis combinations and found that on a given day men were more likely to progress from using a single substance (i.e. tobacco or alcohol) to simultaneously co-administering cannabis, whereas women were more likely to progress from simultaneously using two substances to simultaneously using all three substances (Roche et al., 2019). These event-level results suggest that gender differences in simultaneous polysubstance use may not only depend on the specific substances being used but also may depend on the number of substances being simultaneously consumed. Taken together, these findings highlight the inconsistent gender differences that emerge when examining polysubstance use as concurrent or simultaneous, and as different combinations of substances.
Gender and sexual minorities
Adolescent and adult gender minorities
The exploration of non-binary gender and polysubstance use has focused largely on individuals who identify as transgender i.e. those whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth (Baker, 2017). A representative study of 32,072 California students’ grades 7–12, including 335 transgender youth, examined simultaneous polysubstance use of alcohol, cigarettes, cannabis or other drugs within the previous 30 days (Day et al., 2017). Transgender adolescents were five times more likely to engage in past 30-day simultaneous polysubstance use than their cisgender peers (i.e. those whose gender identity matches their assigned sex at birth; Baker, 2017); the risk was even higher when these individuals also endorsed high levels of victimization (i.e. physical or verbal assault or harassment). Even though this study dichotomizes gender into transgender versus cisgender, findings suggest that gender minorities may be of heightened risk to engage in polysubstance use. Nevertheless, a study of 12,428 American young adults found no difference between gender minorities and cisgender individuals in likelihood of having multiple past year SUDs (Jun et al., 2019). However, Jun and colleagues acknowledged these results as based on a small sample of gender minorities (< 1% of their sample), and they only examined SUDs rather than rates of substance use and polysubstance behaviors.
Sexual minorities
Compared with research on gender minorities, more research exists on polysubstance use in sexual minorities. Studies categorized sexual minorities in one of two ways: either lesbian/gay, bisexual and (in some cases) a third category of ‘something else’ or ‘unsure,’ (Schauer et al., 2013; Dermody, 2018; Coulter et al., 2019; Silveira et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021) or as mostly heterosexual, bisexual or mostly/completely gay/lesbian (Kecojevic et al., 2016; Jun et al., 2019). Results indicate that sexual minority adolescents and young adults are more likely than heterosexual adolescents and adults to engage in polysubstance use. Two studies of adolescent heterosexual and sexual minority individuals categorized participants according to use patterns. Adolescents who identified as sexual minorities were more likely to be categorized into any one of several polysubstance use classes that accounted for lifetime and past month use and were characterized by concurrent use of combinations of alcohol, cannabis or tobacco, compared with a non-user classification (Coulter et al., 2019). Those identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual or something else had a higher likelihood of being classified in groups characterized by higher probabilities of past year concurrent use of alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and other drugs, relative to the group characterized by low probabilities of tobacco, alcohol and drugs (Silveira et al., 2019) Similarly, past year use of any three or more substances studied longitudinally across aged 12–29 were more likely in sexual minorities (Kecojevic et al., 2016). Finally, same-day cigarette and cannabis use and same-day cigarette, cannabis and alcohol use, compared with no polysubstance use, were also more likely in sexual minorities (Nguyen et al., 2021). The increased risk in adolescent and young adult groups is particularly concerning given that adolescent polysubstance users versus non-users are much more likely to develop SUDs in young adulthood (Moss et al., 2014).
Notably, gender differences in polysubstance use have been found in some of these studies of sexual minorities and heterosexual individuals. Sexual minority women, compared with heterosexual women, have reported greater odds of polysubstance use and higher likelihood of being classified into a polysubstance use group for past month combinations of alcohol, cannabis and tobacco (Schauer et al., 2013; Dermody, 2018; Coulter et al., 2019), past year combinations of three or more substances (Kecojevic et al., 2016), and two or more SUDs (for comparisons of completely heterosexual vs. mostly heterosexual and lesbian/gay; no significant gender effect when comparing bisexual individuals to completely heterosexuals; Jun et al., 2019). No significant differences were observed between sexual minority and heterosexual men in these studies. Lastly, one study predicting same-day alcohol, tobacco and cannabis use found no interaction between sexual minority status and gender (Nguyen et al., 2021). Overall, these results suggest a heightened risk of polysubstance use in sexual minorities, particularly women, early in life.
DISCUSSION
Understanding how polysubstance use trends differ based on gender, sex and sexuality is critical for prevention and treatment. However, based on the available research and the findings of the current review, it is difficult to generate a clear picture in this regard. For one, there are simply not enough studies using similar methodologies to confidently synthesize the findings. Significantly more studies examining polysubstance use trends, and how they differ by gender, sex and sexuality with comparable methods are necessary before any conclusions can be drawn.
The findings in this review were mostly inconsistent and often conflicting. In fact, only two findings seem clear. First, at the population level, adult men were overall more likely to report polysubstance use behaviors than adult women. Second, even with the paucity of available research, sexual and gender minorities report more polysubstance use than non-minorities. Conversely, findings on gender differences in adolescent polysubstance use were mixed, and neither adolescent nor adult polysubstance use patterns were clearer when broken down into specific substance combinations. Below we highlight potential methodological and conceptual limitations that may have contributed to this lack of consistency and identify next steps for researchers to avoid or overcome such issues.
(1) Operationalization of polysubstance use: The varying findings were likely due to the inconsistent operationalization of polysubstance use. Polysubstance use definitions differed in degree of overlap (concurrent vs. simultaneous), time-frame considered for concurrent use (ranging from past month to lifetime), method of measurement (using multiple substances vs. having multiple SUDs), substance specificity (analyses by specific substance combinations vs. use of a dichotomous ‘any polysubstance use’ variable) and substances considered (ranging from alcohol, tobacco and cannabis, to a vast number of potentially psychoactive substances). Moreover, a large percentage of the reviewed studies did not clearly define polysubstance use at all (e.g. no specifiers of concurrent vs. simultaneous use or timeframe when poly-use could have occurred).
Researchers should be sure to operationalize ‘polysubstance use’ as clearly as possible in the future. This distinction is critical because our findings suggest that there are differential substance-related consequences based on the timeframe and specific substance combinations being used. Simultaneous polysubstance use is more strongly associated with deviant behavior, interpersonal conflicts and greater SUD severity than concurrent polysubstance use (Mccabe et al., 2006; Midanik et al., 2007; Baggio et al., 2014). Furthermore, specific substance combinations confer substantially greater immediate risk when used simultaneously vs. others. For example, the simultaneous combination of opiates and sedatives is more hazardous than tobacco and cannabis because of the increased risk for overdose and death in the former. Under most situations, the qualifiers of either ‘concurrent’ or ‘simultaneous’ use and the timeframe and number of substances considered should always be described. Timeframes considered should be standardized to past month, past year or lifetime to maximize comparability with population-based national substance use surveys. Dichotomous, ‘any substance’ operationalizations of polysubstance use are far less informative than examining common and/or specific substance combinations. Future research should strive to examine polysubstance use in a more standardized and detailed manner.
(2) Inclusion of gender and sexual/gender minority status as a variable: Due to recent efforts, inclusion of sex as a variable in preclinical and clinical research is increasing (Woitowich et al., 2020). Yet, despite these measurable improvements, the inclusion and statistical examination of sex and gender as variables are still rare (Geller et al., 2018; Sugimoto et al., 2019), and inclusion and examination of gender and sexual minorities are rarer still. Men and women respond differently to drugs (Roche and King, 2015; Zucker and Prendergast, 2020), have different patterns of substance use and show different SUD prevalence. To understand the etiology and treatment of polysubstance use, it is imperative that future studies enroll similar numbers of men and women and compare gender differences in the outcome variables. Moreover, omitting or amalgamating minority groups fails to acknowledge the meaningful differences (e.g. individualized experiences and behaviors) as they relate to outcomes such as substance use (Tate et al., 2014; Bailey et al., 2016; Hyde et al., 2019). Therefore, future studies should also aim to be more inclusive with how they assess gender and sexuality. For those unsure of how to assess these variables, the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study has provided a short and simple guide to collect such data (Potter et al., 2020).
(3) Individual differences in substance use behavior: Few studies statistically accounted for individual differences in substance use behavior when comparing genders, even though frequency of use at the within-person level may be strongly associated with polysubstance use rates. To discern differences in patterns of polysubstance use, it is necessary to disentangle within-person effects (i.e. patterns of use within a specified timeframe) from between-person effects (i.e. tendency for heavier users of one drug to be heavier users of all drugs and/or likelihood for heavier users of multiple drugs to have co-use days by chance). To account for this potential confound, we suggest that person-level means for the frequency of each studied substance be statistically controlled. If frequency of use is not controlled for, then the group (e.g. gender) who has higher basal substance use rates will almost always be biased to show higher polysubstance use rates as well. Indeed, the results of the three studies that controlled for substance use frequency at the individual level support this notion (Hoffman et al., 2000; Terry-McElrath et al., 2013; Roche et al., 2019). In sum, future polysubstance use studies should assess and control for substance use frequency at the individual level, particularly when analyzing gender differences.
In conclusion, polysubstance use is a prevalent and problematic behavior that warrants additional study. Although it seems highly plausible that patterns of polysubstance use would vary by gender, the limited overall number of studies and disparate methodological approaches have given rise to inconsistent and often conflicting results. Surprisingly, the most consistent findings stem from the least studied group: gender and sexual minorities. Studies in this population have mostly suggested that gender and sexual minorities are more likely to report polysubstance use, suggesting that these individuals may be at heightened risk for development of SUD and in need of early intervention. Additional well-powered studies with a clear operationalization of polysubstance use and sound methodological and statistical approaches are needed to clarify the role of gender and sexuality in polysubstance use.
FUNDING
K01AA026005 (Roche, PI); Manuscript preparation was supported in part by the VA Office of Academic Affiliations, Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, VA Center for Integrated Healthcare, and VA Western New York Healthcare System. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
None declared.
References
Husky MM, Paliwal P, Mazure CM, McKee SA. (