The Relationship between Consumption of Alcohol and Other Drugs and Problematic Internet Use among Adolescents/Relacion entre el consumo de alcohol y otras drogas y el uso problematico de Internet en adolescentes.
However, the consumption of alcohol and drugs is not the only issue that society faces. The rapid technological advances witnessed over the past two decades has furthered the expansion and massive use of the Internet and social networks. According to data from the National Institute of Statistics (INE) (2016), 95.2% of children in Spain between the ages of 10 and 15 have used the Internet in the last 3 months. This technological boom has contributed to the emergence of a new social concern about how adolescents use the Internet. Despite the innumerable benefits brought about by technological advances, there are many risks that can arise from their misuse (Livingstone, Haddon, Gorzig & Olafsson, 2011; Munoz-Miralles et al., 2016; Rial, Golpe, Gomez & Barreiro, 2015; Valkenburg & Peter, 2011). Apart from studies warning of the abusive use of the Internet by young people (Blinka et al., 2015; Gencer & Koc, 2012), with uncontrolled access to pornographic, violent, racist and sexist content, there are also those alerting to the many high-risk practices (Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2013; Strassberg, McKinnon, Sustaita & Rullo, 2013; Wolak, Finkelhor & Mitchell, 2004) related to Internet use, such as cyberbullying, sexting and grooming. Some authors have even gone so far as to discuss the possibility of developing an addiction (Jorgenson, Hsiao & Yen, 2016; Young, 1996) or, at least, problematic Internet use (Anderson, Steen & Stavropoulos, 2016; Shapira et al., 2003). While Internet addiction or problematic use was initially identified primarily as a result of the overuse of the Internet, this approach has given way among both professionals and researchers to a focus which sees the problematic use of the Internet as a different problem that goes beyond the mere time online (Beard & Wolf, 2001; Hansen, 2002). In any case, it is precisely the lack of agreement regarding the conceptualization and operationalization of this problem which is behind the considerable variation in prevalence figures estimated by the different studies. For example, at the national level, the work of Oliva et al. (2012) claims that 0.76% of adolescents and young people have a serious level of internet addiction and 21.9% are moderately addicted, while Gomez, Rial, Brana, Varela and Barreiro (2014) put the prevalence of problem users among compulsory secondary education students at 19.9%.
Both problems (consumption of alchol and other drugs, and use of the Internet), are tha cause of grave social concern today, so much so that they are the focus of the latest edition of the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) (European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2016). Furthermore, the increasing importance that they have been acquiring has led in recent years to different authors concerning themselves with analyzing the relationship between these two problems, both in terms of consumption habits (Evren, Dalbudak, Evren & Demirci, 2014; Lee, Han, Kim & Renshaw, 2013; Rucker, Akre, Berchtold & Suris, 2015). High comorbidity between both, as well as hazardous consumption, especially in the case of alcohol has been found. For example, Ko et al. (2008) or Wartberg et al. (2016) coincide precisely in pointing out that problematic Internet users are more likely to have risky alcohol consumption.
In Spain there is still a dearth of studies analyzing the relationship between the problematic use of the Internet and substance use, and those that have been carried out tend to explore this relationship in a partial way. Thus, for example, the work of Secades-Villa et al. (2014) establishes a link between the time spent online and the frequency of consumption of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other illegal drugs among European adolescents, but does not examine the problematic use of the Internet itself, nor the 'hazardous consumption' of drugs with the appropriate instruments. The work of Fernandez-Villa et al. (2015), meanwhile, analyzes the relationship between problematic Internet use and the consumption of different substances among university students without finding any association between the two. Nevertheless, the authors themselves acknowledge that this result could be explained by the fact that a classification criterion was used that does not distinguish between cases of occasional or problematic use. In fact, when the relationship with the consumption of alcohol risk is examined in the study, results reveal that problem users are more likely to obtain a positive result in screening. In another study, Gamez-Guadix, Calvete, Orue and Las Hayas (2015) find a positive relationship between problematic Internet use and the consumption of alcohol risk in adolescents, but do not address the consumption of other drugs.
In short, we are dealing with an issue that has been attracting increasing interest among institutions and researchers worldwide, without, however, producing much evidence to date. This is particularly the case in our country, where most of the work has focused on analyzing the relationship between both problems, but usually with some limitations: either (1) paying attention exclusively to alcohol without taking the consumption of other drugs into acount, or (2) or not assessing hazardous consumption as such by using suitable instruments such as the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT] (Vent, Source, Saunders & Grant, 1989), the CRAFFT Abuse Screening Test (Knight et al., 1999) or the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test [CAST] (Legleye et al., 2011), or (3) using samples from university students rather than adolescents, the latter being a key population with regard to prevention.
Consequently, the present work has a twofold objective: (1) to perform a descriptive analysis of the habits of Internet use, high-risk practices and problematic Internet use, as well as consumption habits for the different substances and the hazardous consumption of alcohol and other drugs, and (2) to analyze the relationship between the problematic Internet use and the hazardous consumption among adolescents through the use of appropriate screening tools with proven psychometric properties.
A selective methodology was employed, consisting of a survey of compulsory secondary education (ESO) and baccalaureate students in the provinces of A Coruna and Pontevedra. For sample selection, purposive sampling was used in an attempt to access as wide and heterogeneous a sample as possible. A total of 15 educational centers in different municipalities took part, both public and private/state-maintained private ('concertado'), both urban and rural.
The initial number of questionnaires collected was 4063, although 62 were eliminated after an exhaustive review process, either because they had an excessive number of missing values (32) or incoherent response patterns (30). In addition, a further 119 cases were eliminated because they were outside the age range under study (12-18 years). Thus the final sample consisted of 3882 adolescents (49.9% males and 50.1% females) aged between 12 and 18 (M = 14.52 and SD = 1.72). Of these, 2669 attended public schools and 1213 were in private or state-maintained private schools, with 74.8% in compulsory secondary education (38% in the first cycle and 36.8% in the second) and 25.2% baccalaureate students.
The data were collected through a questionnaire which was specially drawn up for the present study and included questions grouped in four blocks: (1) the first comprises questions of our own creation to assess the habits of Internet use (frequency of use and time spent online) and possible high-risk practices (sexting, online betting, contact with strangers, etc.) (2) a second block was extracted from the ESTUDES (2010) National Survey on Drug Use among Secondary School Students (Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2011) to collect information on the consumption habits for both alcohol and other substances; (3) a third block that includes four screening tools: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in its self-administered version (Rial, Gomez, Araujo, et al., 2015) to estimate risky alcohol consumption, the internal consistency of which in the present work was acceptable ([alpha] =, 82); the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST) (Legleye et al., 2011) to estimate the risk of cannabis use, with high internal consistency ([alpha] =, 85); the version of the CRAFFT Abuse Screening Test translated into Spanish and validated by Araujo et al. (2015), which presented an a of .62, and the Problematic Internet Use Scale (EUPI-a) (Rial, Gomez, Isorna, Araujo & Varela, 2015). Although the EUPI-a is a tool with less of a tradition than other existing ones, it is an instrument adapted to the Spanish cultural context which has been specifically developed and validated for the adolescent population of our country and which has displayed satisfactory psychometric properties, both in terms of internal consistency ([alpha] = .87), sensitivity (81%), specificity (82.6%) and construct validity, with a duly tested cut-off point for screening; and (4) a final section collecting information on sociodemographic variables such as gender and age.
The data were collected in the classrooms of each center, in small groups (between 15 and 20 individuals), through a questionnaire that each student completed individually. A team of psychologists with proven experience in the accomplishment of this type of tasks carried out the information collection. All participants were informed of the purpose of the study, as well as the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The consent and collaboration of the each center's management as well as the respective parents' associations was obtained. Participation was totally voluntary and questionnaire completion time was approximately 20 minutes. The work was also approved by the bioethics committee of the University of Santiago de Compostela.
A bivariate tabulation was made with the use of Student's t tests for the comparison of means and [chi square] contrasts for the comparison of percentages. Correlation analysis was also performed (with Pearson for metric variables and Spearman for ordinal variables). Finally, a univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusted for gender and age, was performed to predict the high-risk use of alcohol as well as other substances. The analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 20 statistical package.
Problematic Internet use and high-risk practices
As shown in Table 1, the use of the Internet among adolescents is widespread: 83% are online every day or almost every day, with 56.4% connecting for a moderate period of time (three hours or less), while 10.8% spend more than 5 hours a day online and 15.9% say they are online "throughout the day". Girls have a higher connection frequency and spend longer online, with 15 being the age when the greatest increase in the use of the Internet is observed, both in terms of frequency and connection time. Furthermore, 63.8% of adolescents are be registered in three or more social networks, with a significantly higher percentage among women (67.3% vs 60.3%), and particularly above the age of 15 (80.6% %). The most common high-risk practices are: contact with strangers (31.9%) and access to websites with erotic content (30.1%). While women more frequently feel threatened, harassed or humiliated online and have been blackmailed by threats of disseminating photos or videos of them with erotic content, boys admit to a greater extent threatening, harassing or humiliating others, contacting strangers, accessing websites with erotic content and placing bets online. Involvement in most of the high-risk practices analyzed is generally greater with increasing age, and rising especially sharply from the age of 15 onwards. Regarding problematic Internet use as such, 18.4% of adolescents exceeded the cut-off point established on the EUPI-a scale ([greater than or equal to] 16), and can thus be considered problematic users. This percentage was significantly higher among girls and in the older age group (17-18). In addition, in order to analyze the relationship between the problematic Internet use and time online, a Spearman correlation analysis was carried out, obtaining a value [r.sub.xy] = .45 (p < .001). This shows that time online only accounts for 20% of the variance in problematic Internet use ([r.sub.xy.sup.2] = .20).
Consumption of alcohol and other drugs
As shown in Table 2, the most commonly consumed substance among adolescents is alcohol (52.1% previous year, 32.3% previous month), followed by tobacco and cannabis. The results obtained regarding consumption habits in the previous year by gender show that there are only significant differences in relation to smoking, with a slightly higher percentage among girls. Regarding the previous month, statistically significant differences have also been found in the consumption of alcohol, intensive consumption (3 or more alcoholic drinks per sitting and drunkenness) and tobacco, with higher percentages, once again, in the case of girls. There is also a considerable increase in the levels of consumption of many substances with increasing age. The results of screening for hazardous use also show that 19.8% of adolescents drank alcohol (AUDIT), 3.8% consumed cannabis (CAST) and 18% consumed alcohol and other drugs in general (CRAFFT). There were no differences based on gender, although age differences were found, with a significant increase in the consumption of alcohol and other drugs with increasing age.
Relationship between problematic Internet use and consumption of alcohol and other drugs
The relationship between the problematic Internet use and the consumption of alcohol and other drugs was initially verified through an analysis of correlations between the EUPI-a, CRAFFT, AUDIT and CAST scales, all of which statistically significant ([r.sub.xy] EUPI-CRAFFT = 0.39, p < .001) ([r.sub.xy] EUPI-AUDIT = 0.36; p < .001) (rxy EUPI-CAST = .11; p < .001). However, correlation and effect sizes indicate that this relationship is relevant only in the case of drugs and alcohol, where it is moderate (> .30) (Weinberg & Abramowitz, 2002).
To analyze this relationship in greater depth, the sample was divided into two groups (problematic Internet users vs. non-problematic users), and their consumption habits in the previous year and the previous month were compared. The results reported in Table 3 reveal statistically significant differences for almost all substances, with rates almost twice as high among problem users.
The same can be said of hazardous consumption, with significantly higher rates among problem users, three times higher in the case of CRAFFT (39.4% vs. 13.3%) ([c.sup.2] = 248.66; p < .001). The analysis of the effect size once again reveals that this is a moderate relationship in both alcohol ([CC.sub.EUPI-AUDIT] = .21) and drugs in general ([CC.sub.EUPI-CRAFFT]= .25) and practically non-existent in the case of cannabis (([CC.sub.EUPI-CAST] = .08). Similarly, the mean scores obtained on the different screening scales are significantly higher for problematic users, with an almost identical pattern for effect (sizes) ([[eta] .sub.EUPI-CRAFFT] = .26; [[eta] .sub.EUPI-AUDIT = .22; [[eta] .sub.EUPI-CAST]= .08).
Finally, logistic regression analysis (Table 5) revealed that both age and problematic Internet use are risk factors for the development of alcohol and other drug abuse. Specifically, increasing age, the probability of obtaining a positive result in AUDIT (POR = 1.95 [95% CI: 1.83 - 2.08]) and in the CRAFFT (POR = 1.87 [95% CI: 1.75 - 1.99]). With regard to problematic Internet users, these present almost three and four times greater likelihood of developing hazardous use of alcohol and of drugs in general, respectively.
The results obtained serve to reinforce some of the findings in ESTUDES 2014-15 (Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2016), according to which alcohol remains the psychoactive substance most consumed by adolescents, followed by tobacco and cannabis. Furthermore, the data confirm the trend already noted by other authors (Vargas & Trujillo, 2012; White et al., 2015) regarding the reduction of the gender gap in the consumption of different substances, which is even inverted in the case of alcohol and tobacco. Although the rates found in the lowest age range are apparently small, when carried over to population figures, would mean that between 2000 and 5000 Galician adolescents between 12 and 14 got drunk, smoked tobacco and consumed cannabis in the previous month. These figures are of particular concern in view of the important implications that the consumption of these substances can have on the developing brain, as can be seen in the works of Cadaveira (2009), Jacobus and Tapert (2015), and Yuan, Cross, Loughlin and Leslie (2015). In terms of hazardous consumption, it is important to note that the overall prevalence figures obtained 'mask' very unequal percentages depending on age range, with rates of up to eight times higher registered in the group of 17 to 18-year olds in comparison with the youngest age group (12-14).
With regard to the Internet, the data obtained show that its use is nowadays widespread among Spanish adolescents. Although both Internet and social network use are more intensive with increasing age, it is noteworthy that between the ages of 12 and 14, seven out of ten adolescents are online daily, and one in four for more than five hours. It should be pointed out, however, that in spite of a positive and significant correlation between the hours that adolescents spend online and problematic Internet use being found, the magnitude of this relationship turned out to be moderate, which shows that problematic Internet use is a different issue, which goes beyond time spent online and whose defining element is the degree of interference it causes in the life of the adolescent (Beard & Wolf, 2001). Moreover, it is observed that the vast majority are members of a social network and almost half of three or more. It is clear, therefore, that adolescents make relatively intensive use of the Internet, with the consequences, both physical and psychosocial, that this can lead to (Randy et al., 2015).
The most frequent high-risk practices are contact with strangers and access to websites with erotic content, which can be of concern when dealing with individuals whose brain maturity does not yet allow them to develop an adequate cognitive, emotional and behavioral response to certain situations (Owens, Behun, Manning & Reid, 2012). With regard to the prevalence of problematic Internet use, this stood at 18.4%. This result is similar to that obtained in other studies carried out on the same population and with the same screening tool as the one by Gomez et al. (2014) and Gomez, Rial, Brana, Golpe and Varela (2017), or that obtained by Lopez-Fernandez, Freixa-Blanxart and Honrubia-Serrano (2012) using the Problematic Entertainment Use Scale for Adolescents. However, it is important to point out that for both theoretical and methodological reasons there is still a significant problem of comparability between the results of the different studies, which is one of the main challenges to date in this field of research.
Beyond the analysis of the consumption levels of the different substances and the possible problematic use that adolescents make of the Internet, the results obtained also show the existence of a link between both behaviors. This not only confirms the findings of other studies regarding the relationship between problematic Internet use and consumption of alcohol risk (Fernandez-Villa et al., 2015; Gamez-Guadix et al., 2015), but also evidence that problematic Internet use is associated with the hazardous use of other drugs. A logistic regression analysis has also shown a significantly higher rate of hazardous consumption among adolescents who make problematic use of the Internet, up to four times in the case of CRAFFT.
Numerous studies until today have highlighted the link between problematic Internet use and substance use (Cia, 2013; Holden, 2001; Sun et al., 2012). This suggests, as proposed in the problematic behavior theory (Jessor, 1991), that different types of deviant behavior might respond to the same determinants. According to this approach, there would be a common "psychosocial propensity" to develop the different problem behaviors defined by personality traits as well as the social context, the perceived environment and the individual's own behavior. Thus, for example, the work of Ko et al. (2008) found that certain psychosocial characteristics such as being a man, a dysfunctional family, having low self-esteem and low life satisfaction were associated with both problematic alcohol consumption and Internet addiction. The main implication of the results obtained at the applied level may be the importance of proposing transversal prevention, beyond approaches or programs focused on specific behaviors, and capable of acting on the variables common to both problem behaviors. Thus, interventions aimed at improving education in values and the learning of life skills could provide a platform on which to develop preventive work, insofar as they start from an individual-environment interaction model that has been shown to be effective in drug prevention (European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2011; Faggiano, Minozzi, Versino & Buscemi, 2014; Moshki, Hassanzade & Taymoori, 2014).
Finally, the present work has some limitations, the first of which would be the sample used. Despite being based on data from 4000 adolescents, the fact that non-probabilistic sampling was used for their selection and that they originate exclusively from the provinces of A Coruna and Pontevedra limits the external validity of the results. Secondly, it is important to refer to the transversal nature of the work, which prevents causal relationships being established among the variables under study. Finally, mention should be made of the fact that all variables have been self-reported, making it impossible to know for certain to what extent adolescents may have underestimated or overestimated both their levels of consumption and the amount of time they spend online. However, as various experts in the field of addictive behavior have previously pointed out, self-report measures have proven to be reliable and even better than other methods in assessing levels of alcohol and other drug use (Babor, Kranzler & Lauerman, 1989; Winters, Stinchfield, Henly & Schwartz, 1990).
The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge the funding received through the Delegacion del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas (Ref. 2013/046) to carry out this study.
Conflict of interests
The authors of this article declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Anderson, E.L., Steen, E. & Stavropoulos, V. (2016). Internet use and Problematic Internet Use: A systematic review of longitudinal research trends in adolescence and emergent adulthood. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 1-25. doi:10.1080/ 02673843.2016.1227716.
Araujo, M., Harris, S.K., Knight, J.R., Gomez, P., Varela, J., Brana, T. & Lamas, M.J. (2015, septiembre). CRAFFT validation study in a Spanish sample: Psychometric properties and recommendations. Comunicacion presentada en la First European Conference on Addictive Behaviors and Dependencias, Lisboa, Portugal.
Babor, T. F., De La Fuente, J. R., Saunders, J. & Grant, M. (1989). AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Guidelines for use in primary health care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Babor, T. F., Kranzler, H. R. & Lauerman, R.J. (1989). Early detection of harmful alcohol consumption: comparison of clinical, laboratory, and self-report screening procedures. Addictive Behaviors, 14, 139-157.
Beard, K.W. & Wolf, E.M. (2001). Modification in the proposed diagnostic criteria for Internet Addiction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4, 377-383. doi:10.1089/109493101300210286.
Blinka, L., Skarupova, K., Sevcikova, A., Wolfling, K., Muller, K. W. & Dreier, M. (2015). Excessive internet use in European adolescents: What determines differences in severity? International Journal of Public Health, 60, 249-56. doi:10.1007/s00038-014-0635-x.
Cadaveira, F. (2009). Alcohol y cerebro adolescente. Adicciones, 21, 9-14.
Caplan, S. E. (2002). Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being: Development of a theory-based cognitive-behavioral measurement instrument. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 553-575. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00004-3.
Cia, A. H. (2013). Las adicciones no relacionadas a sustancias (DSM-5, APA, 2013): un primer paso hacia la inclusion de las adicciones conductuales en las clasificaciones categoriales vigentes. Revista de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 76, 210-217. doi:10.20453/ rnp.2013.1169.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2011). European drug prevention quality standards: A manual for prevention professionals. Luxemburgo: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved at http://prevention-standards.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/EMCDDA-EDPQS-Manual.pdf.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2016). The European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) report 2015. Luxemburgo: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved at http://www.espad.org/sites/ espad.org/files/ESPAD_ report_2015.pdf.
Evren, C., Dalbudak, E., Evren, B. & Demirci, A. C. (2014). High risk of Internet addiction and its relationship with lifetime substance use, psychological and behavioral problems among 10th grade adolescents. Psychiatria Danubina, 26, 330-339.
Faggiano, F., Minozzi, S., Versino, E. & Buscemi, D. (2014). Universal school-based prevention for illicit drug use. The Cochrane Library, 12, 1-167. doi:10.1002/ 14651858. CD003020.pub3
Fernandez-Villa, T., Alguacil, J., Almaraz, A., Cancela, J. M., Delgado-Rodriguez, M., Garcia-Martin, M.,... Martin, V. (2015). Uso problematico de Internet en estudiantes universitarios: factores asociados y diferencias de genero. Adicciones, 27, 265-275.
Gamez-Guadix, M., Calvete, E., Orue, I. & Las Hayas, C. (2015). Problematic Internet use and problematic alcohol use from the cognitive-behavioral model: A longitudinal study among adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 40, 109-114. doi:10.1016/ j.addbeh.2014.09.009.
Garaigordobil, M. & Aliri, J. (2013). Ciberacoso ("cyberbullying") en el Pais Vasco: diferencias de sexo en victimas, agresores y observadores. Behavioral Psychology, 21, 461-474.
Gencer, S. L. & Koc, M. (2012). Internet abuse among teenagers and its relations to internet usage patterns and demographics. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 25-36.
Gomez, P., Rial, A., Brana, T., Varela, J. & Golpe, S. (2017). Screening of Problematic Internet Use among Spanish adolescents: Prevalence and related variables. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(3), 1-10.
Gomez, P., Rial, A., Brana, T., Varela, J. & Barreiro, C. (2014). Evaluation and early detection of problematic Internet use in adolescents. Psicothema, 26, 21-26. doi:10.7334/ psicothema2013.109.
Hansen, S. (2002). Excessive Internet usage or "Internet addiction"? The implications of diagnostic categories for student users. Journal of Computer Assited Learning, 18, 235-236. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2002.t01-2-00230.x.
Holden, C. (2001). "Behavioral" addictions: Do they exist? Science, 294, 980-982. doi:10.1126/science.294.5544.980.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica [INE]. (2016). Encuesta sobre equipamiento y uso de tecnologias de informacion y comunicacion en los hogares. Madrid, Espana.
Jacobus, J. & Tapert, S. (2015). Effects of cannabis on the adolescent brain. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 20, 2186-2193. doi:10.2174/13816128113199990426.
Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Journal ofAdolescent Health, 12, 597-605. doi:10.1016/1054-139X(91)90007-K.
Jorgenson, A.G., Hsiao, R.C & Yen, C-F (2016). Internet addiction and other behavioral addictions. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 25, 509-520. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2016.03.004.
Kelly, K. J. & Gruber, E. M. (2013). Problematic Internet use and physical health. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2, 108-112. doi:10.1556/JBA.1.2012.016.
Knight, J. R., Shrier, L. A., Bravender, T. D., Farrell, M., Vander Bilt, J. & Shaffer, H. J. (1999). A new brief screen for adolescent substance abuse. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153, 591-596.
Ko, C. H., Yen, J. Y., Yen, C. F., Chen, C. S., Weng, C. C. & Chen, C. C. (2008). The association between Internet addiction and problematic alcohol use in adolescents: The problem behavior model. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 571-576. doi:10.1089/ cpb.2008.0199.
Lee, Y. S., Han, D. H., Kim, S. M. & Renshaw, P. F. (2013). Substance abuse precedes internet addiction. Addictive Behaviors, 38, 2022-2025. doi:10.1016/ j.addbeh.2012.12.024.
Legleye, S., Piontek, D. & Kraus, L. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST) in a French sample of adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 113, 229-235. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.08.011.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig, A. & Olafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings. London: LSE. Retrieved at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/1/Risks_and_safety_on_the_internet_the_ perspective_of_European_children.pdf.
Lopez-Fernandez, O., Freixa-Blanxart, M., Honrubia-Serrano, M.L. (2012). The Problematic Internet Entertainment Use Scale for Adolescents: Prevalence of problem Internet use in Spanish high school students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 108-118. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0250.
Moshki, M., Hassanzade, T. & Taymoori, P. (2014). Effect of life skills training on drug abuse preventive behaviors among university students. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 5, 577-583.
Munoz-Miralles, R., Ortega-Gonzalez, R., Lopez-Moron, M.R., Batalla-Martinez, C., Manresa, J.M., Montella-Jor-dana, N.,... Toran-Montserrat, P. (2016). The problematic use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in adolescents by the cross sectional JOITIC study. BMC Pediatrics, 16, 140-151. doi:10.1186/s12887-016-0674-y.
Oliva, A., Hidalgo, H. V., Moreno, C., Jimenez, L., Jimenez, A., Antolin, L. & Ramos, P. (2012). Uso y riesgo de adicciones a las nuevas tecnologias entre adolescentes y jovenes andaluces. Sevilla: Editorial Aguaclara.
Owens, E. W., Behun, R. J., Manning, J. C. & Reid, R. C. (2012). The impact of Internet pornography on adolescents: A review of the research. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 19, 99-122. doi:10.1080/10720162.2012.660431.
Plan Nacional sobre Drogas. (2011). Encuesta sobre el uso de drogas en ensenanzas secundarias (ESTUDES) 2010. Madrid, Espana: Delegacion del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, Ministerio de Sanidad, Politica Social e Igualdad.
Plan Nacional sobre Drogas. (2016). Encuesta sobre el uso de drogas en ensenanzas secundarias en Espana (ESTUDES) 2014-2015. Madrid, Espana: Delegacion del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad.
Rial, A., Golpe, S., Gomez, P. & Barreiro, C. (2015). Variables asociadas al uso problematico de internet entre adolescentes. Salud y Drogas, 15, 25-38.
Rial, A., Gomez, P., Araujo, M., Real, E., Cartelle, J., Picon, E.,... Isorna, M. (2015). Psychometric properties of the self-administered AUDIT in Spanish adolescents. Trabajo presentado en la First European conference on addictive behaviours and dependencies. Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction [EMCDDA].
Rial, A., Gomez, P., Isorna, M., Araujo, M. & Varela, J. (2015). EUPI-a: Escala de Uso Problematico de Internet en adolescentes. Desarrollo y validacion psicometrica. Adicciones, 27, 47-63.
Rucker, J., Akre, C., Berchtold, A. & Suris, J. C. (2015). Problematic Internet use is associated with substance use in young adolescents. Acta Paediatrica, 104, 504-507. doi:10.1111/ apa.12971.
Secades-Villa, R., Calafat, A., Hernandez-Hermida, J. R., Juan, M., Duch, M., Skarstrand, E.,... Talic, S. (2014). Duration of Internet use and adverse psychosocial effects among European adolescents. Adicciones, 26, 247-253.
Shapira, N. A., Lessig, M. C., Goldsmith, T. D., Szabo, S. T., Lazoritz, M., Gold, M. S. & Stein, D. J. (2003). Problematic internet use: Proposed classification and diagnostic criteria. Depression and Anxiety, 17, 207-216. doi:10.1002/ da.10094.
Strassberg, D. S., McKinnon, R. K., Sustaita, M. A. & Rullo, J. (2013). Sexting by high school students: An exploratory and descriptive study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 15-21. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9969-8.
Sun, P., Johnson, C. A., Palmer, P., Arpawong, T. E., Unger, J. B., Xie, B.,... Sussman, S. (2012). Concurrent and predictive relationships between compulsive Internet use and substance use: Findings from vocational high school students in China and USA. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 660-673. doi:10.3390/ijerph9030660.
Valkenburg, P. M. & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities,risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 121-127. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020.
Vargas, C. & Trujillo, H. (2012). Cannabis consumption by female Psychology students: The influence of perceived stress, coping and consumption of drugs in their social environment. Universitas Psychologica, 11, 119-130.
Wartberg, L., Brunner, R., Kriston, L., Durkee, T., Parzer, P., Fischer-Waldschmidt, G.,... Kaess, M. (2016). Psychopathological factors associated with problematic alcohol and problematic Internet use in a sample of adolescents in Germany. Psychiatry Research, 240, 272-277. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.057.
Weinberg, S.L. & Abramowitz, S.K. (2002). Data analysis for the behavioral sciences using SPSS. United States of America: Cambridge University Press.
White, A., Castle, I. J., Chen, C. M., Shirley, M., Roach, D. & Hingson, R. (2015). Converging patterns of alcohol use and related outcomes among females and males in the United States, 2002 to 2012. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 39, 1712-1726. doi:10.1111/acer.12815.
Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., Henly, G. A. & Schwartz, R. H. (1990). Validity of adolescent self-report of alcohol and other drug involvement. International Journal of the Addictions, 25, 1379-1395. doi:10.3109/10826089009068469.
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D. & Mitchell, K. (2004). Internet-initiated Sex Crimes against Minors : Implications for Prevention Based on Findings from a National Study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 424.e11-424.e20. doi:10.1016/j. jadohealth.2004.05.006.
Young, K.S. (1996). Internet Addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Trabajo presentado en el 104th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Yuan, M., Cross, S. J., Loughlin, S. E. & Leslie, F. M. (2015). Nicotine and the adolescent brain. The Journal of Pshysiology, 593, 3397-3412. doi:10.1113/JP270492.
SANDRA GOLPE (*), PATRICIA GOMEZ (*), TERESA BRANA (*), JESUS VARELA (*), ANTONIO RIAL (*).
(*) Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Espana.
Received: October 2016; Accepted: January 2017.
Send correspondence to:
Antonio Rial Boubeta. Facultad de Psicologia, C/ Xose Maria Suarez Nunez, s/n. Campus Vida- Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. 15782- Santiago de Compostela (Espana). E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Table 1. Habits of Internet and social network use, high-risk practices and problematic use. Global (%) Sex Connection frequency Male (%) Female (%) Never/almost never 1.1 1.2 1 Occasionally during the month 3.2 3.9 2.4 Occasionally during the week 12.7 13 12.4 Every/almost every day 83 81.9 84.2 Time online per day Less than 1 hour 14 14.5 13.5 1-2 hours 24.2 26.5 21.8 2-3 hours 18.2 19.9 16.6 3-5 hours 16.9 17.3 16.7 Over 5 hours 10.8 10.6 11 All day 15.9 11.3 20.5 Social networks None 7.8 8.7 6.8 1 or 2 28.4 31 26 3 or more 63.8 60.3 67.3 High-risk practices Victim of threats, harassment or humiliation 5.9 4.5 7.4 Initiator of threats, harassment or humiliation 4.6 6 3.1 Sexting 5.2 4.5 5.8 Victim of blackmail (publishing/ disseminating photos or videos of yours with erotic content) 3 1.9 4.1 Accessing erotic websites 30.1 49.9 10.3 Online betting 6.7 11.8 1.5 Contact with strangers 31.9 34.4 29.5 Meeting strangers 14 14.7 13.2 Problematic use (EUPI-a) 18.4 16.6 20.4 Age (years) Connection frequency [chi square] 12-14 (%) 15-16 (%) Never/almost never 8.60 (*) 2.1 0.1 Occasionally during the month 5.4 1 Occasionally during the week 20.7 4.7 Every/almost every day 71.8 94.2 Time online per day Less than 1 hour 65.37 (**) 22.9 5.3 1-2 hours 31.9 17.1 2-3 hours 18.5 19.6 3-5 hours 13.2 20.9 Over 5 hours 7.1 13.2 All day 6.5 23.9 Social networks None 20.15 (**) 12.6 3.1 1 or 2 40.5 16.3 3 or more 46.8 80.6 High-risk practices Victim of threats, harassment or humiliation 14.80 (**) 5.9 6.1 Initiator of threats, harassment or humiliation 18.92 (**) 3.5 5.7 Sexting 3.23 1.9 7.9 Victim of blackmail (publishing/ disseminating photos or videos of yours with erotic content) 14.85 (**) 2.8 3.2 Accessing erotic websites 717.23 (**) 17.2 40.5 Online betting 162.51 (**) 4.3 7.9 Contact with strangers 10.57 (**) 23.8 39.8 Meeting strangers 1.79 8.9 18 Problematic use (EUPI-a) 8.92 (*) 14 22 Age (years) Connection frequency 17-18 (%) [chi square] Never/almost never 0.5 343.72 (**) Occasionally during the month 0.8 Occasionally during the week 4.7 Every/almost every day 94 Time online per day Less than 1 hour 5.6 589.33 (**) 1-2 hours 16 2-3 hours 14.3 3-5 hours 19.9 Over 5 hours 17.4 All day 26.8 Social networks None 3 477.20 (**) 1 or 2 16.4 3 or more 80.6 High-risk practices Victim of threats, harassment or humiliation 5.8 .08 Initiator of threats, harassment or humiliation 5 9.93 (*) Sexting 9.8 88.57 (**) Victim of blackmail (publishing/ disseminating photos or videos of yours with erotic content) 3.3 .70 Accessing erotic websites 47 302.19 (**) Online betting 11.1 40.30 (**) Contact with strangers 39.9 114.32 (**) Meeting strangers 20.8 82.01 (**) Problematic use (EUPI-a) 24.7 50.65 (**) Note. (*) p < .05; (**) p <.oo1. Table 2. Substance use habits and hazardous consumption. Global (%) Sex Substance use habits (previous year) Male (%) Female (%) Drinking alcohol 52.1 50.7 53.4 3 or more alcoholic drinks per day 33.1 31.8 34.2 6 or more alcoholic drinks per day 18.1 18.7 17.2 Getting drunk 26.3 25.4 27 Tobacco 23.4 21.2 25.4 Marijuana or hashish 14.8 15.3 14.3 Cocaine 0.9 1.1 0.6 Ecstasy, amphetamines 1.1 1.2 0.9 or hallucinogens Substance use habits (previous month) Drinking alcohol 32.3 30 34.5 3 or more alcoholic drinks per day 20 18.2 21.8 6 or more alcoholic drinks per day 8.6 8.9 8.3 Getting drunk 12.9 11.7 14 Tobacco 16.1 14.3 17.8 Marijuana or hashish 8.5 8.6 8.4 Cocaine 0.4 0.4 0.4 Ecstasy, amphetamines 0.4 0.3 0.5 or hallucinogens Hazardous consumption AUDIT 19.8 19 20.6 CAST 3.8 4.2 3.4 CRAFFT 18 17.2 18.9 Age (years) Substance use habits (previous year) [chi square] 12-14 15-16 17-18 Drinking alcohol 2.74 32.9 68.2 76.9 3 or more alcoholic drinks per day 2.31 14.4 47.1 60.9 6 or more alcoholic drinks per day 1.34 6.4 25.9 36.8 Getting drunk 1.18 10.1 38 50.8 Tobacco 9.2 (*) 11.9 31.2 41.8 Marijuana or hashish 0.65 5.9 20.3 30.3 Cocaine 1.97 0.6 1.2 1 Ecstasy, amphetamines 0.89 0.6 1.4 1.8 or hallucinogens Substance use habits (previous month) Drinking alcohol 8.69 (*) 16.1 43.7 57.8 3 or more alcoholic drinks per day 7.36 (*) 7.1 28.4 41.7 6 or more alcoholic drinks per day 0.33 3.1 11.3 19.5 Getting drunk 4.70 (*) 4.5 17.1 29.6 Tobacco 8.54 (*) 8 21.3 30.2 Marijuana or hashish 0.04 3.6 11.5 17.6 Cocaine 0.00 0.4 0.4 0.2 Ecstasy, amphetamines 0.26 0.3 0.6 0.2 or hallucinogens Hazardous consumption AUDIT 1.37 5.3 30.1 43.8 CAST 1.27 1.8 5.5 6.1 CRAFFT 1.64 5.1 26.8 39.3 Substance use habits (previous year) [chi square] Drinking alcohol 569.59 (**) 3 or more alcoholic drinks per day 631.02 (**) 6 or more alcoholic drinks per day 373.70 (**) Getting drunk 542.83 (**) Tobacco 300.55 (**) Marijuana or hashish 266.76 (**) Cocaine 3.84 Ecstasy, amphetamines 9.44 (*) or hallucinogens Substance use habits (previous month) Drinking alcohol 489.18 (**) 3 or more alcoholic drinks per day 436.12 (**) 6 or more alcoholic drinks per day 179.36 (**) Getting drunk 292.58 (**) Tobacco 209.42 (**) Marijuana or hashish 137.98 (**) Cocaine 0.81 Ecstasy, amphetamines 2.61 or hallucinogens Hazardous consumption AUDIT 538.35 (**) CAST 40.38 (**) CRAFFT 454.79 (**) Note. (*) p < .05; (**) p <.001. Table 3. Differences in substance use habits among problematic Internet users. Substance use habits EUPI (previous year) Positive (%) Negative (%) [chi square] Drinking alcohol 65.7 48.9 62.62 (**) 3 or more alcoholic drinks 47.5 29.8 78.87 (**) per day 6 or more alcoholic drinks 27.9 15.7 56.17 (**) per day Getting drunk 39.5 23.3 76.03 (**) Tobacco 35.8 20.4 74.09 (**) Marijuana/hashish 23.8 12.7 54.26 (**) Cocaine 1.4 0.7 3.10 Ecstasy/amphetamines/ 2 0.8 6.82 (*) hallucinogens Substance use habits (previous month) Drinking alcohol 42.6 29.8 42.13 (**) 3 or more alcoholic drinks 29.2 17.8 44.87 (**) per day 6 or more alcoholic drinks 13.5 7.4 25.82 (**) per day Getting drunk 20.6 11 46.16 (**) Tobacco 24.2 14.1 42.22 (**) Marijuana/hashish 13.3 7.2 26.30 (**) Cocaine 0.1 0.4 0.56 Ecstasy/amphetamines/ 0.9 0.3 2.72 hallucinogens Note. (*) p < .05; (**) p <.001. Table 4. Differences in hazardous consumption among problematic Internet users. Hazardous consumption EUPI Contrast Positive Negative AUDIT 38.1% 15.8% [chi square] = 165.92 (**) Mean = 4.54 Mean = 1.83 t = -16.67 (**) CAST 7% 2.9% [chi square] = 24.69 (**) Mean = 0.70 Mean = 0.28 t = -4.95 (**) CRAFFT 39.4% 13.3% [chi square] = 248.66 (**) Mean = 1.51 Mean = 0.62 t = -18.01 (**) Note. (*) p < .05; (**) p <.001. Table 5. Logistic regression models for predicting hazardous consumption. AUDIT CRAFFT Variable Univariate Multivariate (1) Univariate POR (95% CI) POR (95% CI) POR (95% CI) SEX Male 1 1 1 Female 1.11 (0.94-1.30) 1.11 (0.92-1.34) 1.12 (0.95-1.32) AGE 1.97 (1.86-2.10) 1.95 (1.83-2.08) 1.88 (1.77-1.99) EUPI-a Negative 1 1 1 Positive 3.28 (2.73-3.96) 2.92 (2.38-3.69) 4.25 (3.52-5.13) CRAFFT Variable Multivariate (1) POR (95% CI) SEX Male 1 Female 1.07 (0.89-1.30) AGE 1.87 (1.75-1.99) EUPI-a Negative 1 Positive 3.90 (3.17-4.80) Note. POR = Prevalence of odds ratio; CI= confidence interval; 1Adjusted for the other independent variables included in the column.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Golpe, Sandra; Gomez, Patricia; Brana, Teresa; Varela, Jesus; Rial, Antonio|
|Date:||Dec 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Binge Drinking among Adolescents: Prevalence, Risk Practices and Related Variables/Consumo intensivo de alcohol en adolescentes: prevalencia,...|
|Next Article:||Animal models of drug addiction/Modelos animales de adiccion a las drogas.|