Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prevalence of alcohol and drug use in a highly educated workforce

  • Regular Articles
  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined alcohol and licit and illicit drug use in a highly educated workforce. A comprehensive health survey of a 10% random sample of a workforce (n=8,567) yielded a 60% response rate (n=504) after accounting for 15 undeliverable surveys. Many respondents reported past-year use of alcohol (87%). Thirteen percent of respondents consumed three or more drinks daily; 15% were binge drinkers. Twelve percent of the workforce was assessed as having a high likelihood of lifetime alcohol dependence; 5% of respondents met criteria for current problem drinking. Overall, 42% reported using mood-altering prescription drugs (analgesics, antidepressants, sedatives, or tranquilizers). Eleven percent reported using illicit drugs (cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, or marijuana) in the past year. Significant relationships were found between gender, age, ethnicity, and occupation with some measures of alcohol consumption and use of mood-altering drugs. These results indicate prevention and early intervention programs need to address use of mood-altering substances (including alcohol) in highly educated workforces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Office of Applied Studies.Summary of Findings from the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1999. DHHS publication (SMA) 99-3328.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hingson RW, Lederman RI, Walsh DC. Employee drinking patterns and accidental injury: a study of four New England states.Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1995;46(4):298–303.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stallones L, Kraus JF. The occurrence and epidemiologic features of alcohol-related occupational injuries.Addiction. 1993;88(7):945–951.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Miller TR. Estimating the costs of injury to US employers.Journal of Safety Research. 1997;28(1):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  5. National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers.Treatment Is the Answer: A White Paper on the Cost-Effectiveness of Alcoholism and Drug Dependency Treatment. Laguana Beach, CA: Author; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mangione TW, Howland J, Amick B, et al. Employee drinking practices and work performance.Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1999;60(2):261–270.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Office of Applied Studies.Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and Programs: Results from the 1994 and 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Analysis of Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and Programs, Analytic Series: A-11. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1997. DHHS publication (SMA) 99-3352.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Backer TE.Strategic Planning for Workplace Drug Abuse Programs. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Najavits LM. Numbing the pain: addiction and trauma. Annual conference.Understanding and Treating the Addictions. Boston: Harvard Medical School; March, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  10. US Census Bureau.Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1999. 119th ed. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  11. National Center for Education Statistics.Survey of Employment: Fall 1993. Washington, DC: US Dept of Education; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Crum RM, Muntaner C, Eaton WW, et al. Occupational stress and the risk of alcohol abuse and dependence.Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1995;19(3):647–655.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brownsberger W. Addiction and urban policy. Annual conference.Understanding and Treating the Addictions. Boston: Harvard Medical School; March, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Office of Applied Studies.Substance Abuse among Women in the United States. Analytic Series: A-3. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1997. DHHS publication (SMA) 97-3162.

    Google Scholar 

  15. O'Hare T. Differences in Asian and white drinking: consumption level, drinking contexts, and expectancies.Addictive Behaviors. 1995;20(2):261–266.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bush B, Shaw S, Cleary P, et al. Screening for alcohol abuse using the CAGE questionnaire.American Journal of Medicine. 1987;82:231–235.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Smart RG, Adlaf EM, Knoke D. Use of the CAGE scale in a population survey of drinking.Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1991;52(6):593–596.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Beresford TP, Blow FC, Hill E, et al. Comparison of CAGE questionnaire and computer-assisted laboratory profiles in screening for covert alcoholism.Lancet. 1990;336:482–485.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cherpitel CJ. Screening for alcohol problems in the emergency room: a rapid alcohol problems screen.Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1995;40:133–137.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fertig JB, Allen JP, Cross GM. CAGE as a predictor of hazardous alcohol consumption in US Army personnel.Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1993;17(6):1184–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mackenzie DM, Langa A, Brown TM. Identifying hazardous or harmful alcohol use in medical admissions: a comparison of AUDIT, CAGE, and Brief MAST.Alcohol and Alcoholism. 1996;31(6):591–599.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cherpitel CJ. Brief screening instruments for alcoholism.Alcohol Health and Research World. 1997;21(4):348–351.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Conigrave KM, Hall WD, Saunders JB. The AUDIT questionnaire: choosing a cut-off score.Addiction. 1995;90:1349–1356.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bradley KA, McDonell MB, Bush K, et al. The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions: reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change in older male primary care patients.Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1998;22(8):1842–1849.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Saunders J, et al.AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Health Care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Galvin DM. Workplace managed care: collaboration for substance abuse prevention.Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2000;27(2):125–130.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hume AL, Barbour MM, Lapane KL, et al. Is antidepressant use changing? Prevalence and clinical correlates in two New England communities.Pharmacotherapy. 1995;15(1):78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Woodwell DA.National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1997 Summary: Number 305. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  29. The top 200 drugs of 1998.Pharmacy Times. 1999;65:16.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Galanter M. ASAM/Hay study finds striking decline in benefits for addiction treatment.ASAM News. March–April 1999:6–7.

  31. Mangione TW, Howland J, Lee M.New Perspectives for Worksite Alcohol Strategies: Results from a Corporate Drinking Study. Boston: JSI Research and Training Institute; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Duffy JC, Waterton JJ. Under-reporting of alcohol consumption in sample surveys: the effect of computer interviewing in fieldwork.British Journal of Addiction. 1984;79(3):303–308.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yu J, Cooper H. A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires.Journal of Marketing Research. 1983;20:36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Allen JP, Columbus M, eds.Assessing Alcohol Problems: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 1995. DHHS publication (NIH) 95-3745.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CopingMatters Program, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 94305-5724, Stanford, CA

    Robert A. Matano PhD (Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emeritus, Principal Investigator/Program Director), Stanley F. Wanat PhD (Deputy Program Director), Darrah Westrup PhD (Post-Doctoral Fellow in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences), Cheryl Koopman PhD (Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences) & Shelly D. Whitsell BA (Program Coordinator)

Authors
  1. Robert A. Matano PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stanley F. Wanat PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Darrah Westrup PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cheryl Koopman PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shelly D. Whitsell BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matano, R.A., Wanat, S.F., Westrup, D. et al. Prevalence of alcohol and drug use in a highly educated workforce. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 29, 30–44 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287830

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287830

Keywords

Search

Navigation