Abstract
Background/Objective
Past research suggests gender differences exist in types of substances used and age of first use. Recent studies exploring contextual differences in substance use between rural Appalachian and urban environments show different patterns of substance use in rural environments. This study explores whether previously established differences in gender and age of first use exist within a rural Appalachian environment.
Methods
Data are from a community-based study of drug users in rural Appalachia (N=400). Self-reported substance use was recorded via an interviewer-administered questionnaire with questions from the Addiction Severity Index.
Results
On average, participants were 32 years old (X̄ = 32.33; median = 31.00; IQR = 12) and the majority were male (59%). Examining past 30 day use, more males reported alcohol (AOR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.36, 3.23; p = .001) and any illegal drug use (AOR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.95; p=.010) which included heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and hallucinogens, after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics. ANCOVA analyses showed that males reported use of alcohol (p=.000), marijuana (p=.007), and hallucinogens (p=.009) at a significantly younger age than females.
Conclusion/Scientific Significance
Findings suggest more men report use of alcohol and “street” drugs including: heroin, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and hallucinogens. Further, males report the use of alcohol, marijuana, and hallucinogens at a significantly younger age. Understanding gender differences in substance use as well as other differences among individuals living in rural, Appalachia presents important opportunities to incorporate this knowledge into substance abuse early intervention, prevention and treatment efforts.
Keywords: gender, substance use, rural, Appalachia
1. Introduction
Substance Use and Gender Differences
Extant research suggests gender differences may exist in use of alcohol and illegal drugs, as well as with illicit use of prescription drugs. Alcohol has consistently been identified in the literature as having differing use patterns among men and women. Based on data from the 2004 and 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), males were more likely than females to report past month: alcohol use, binge drinking (i.e. 5 or more drinks on the same occasion), and heavy alcohol use (i.e., 5+ drinks on the same occasion for 5 or more days1). Further, the 2008 NSDUH suggests 58% of males aged 12 or older were current drinkers compared with only 46% of females2. A synthesis of data from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study, the Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey, and the National Comorbidity Survey suggests higher rates of alcohol abuse disorders among men3. Other reviews of the literature, including one focused on studies from 1966 to 2000 also suggests a higher prevalence rate of alcohol use disorders among men4.
Associations between gender and illegal/illicit drug use appear more complicated. Previous research suggests when given the opportunity to use drugs for the first time both men and women are equally likely to do so5. However, epidemiologic data from the ECA study, the National Comorbidity Study, and the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) show higher rates of lifetime drug use and drug use disorders among men3. Data from the 2008 NSDUH also suggests rates of illegal drug use were higher for males than for females2. Gender differences in drug use have narrowed slightly in recent years6. While overall trends may show more drug use among men, women are more likely to report the use of specific classes of illicit drugs. Specifically, past research suggests women are more likely than men to report non-medical use of prescription drugs, including narcotic analgesics and tranquilizers5,7,8. One study based on NHSDA data (from 1991 through 1993) suggests women were 1.5 times more likely to report problem use of prescription drugs in the past year and twice as likely as men to report past year problem use of narcotic analgesics and tranquilizers8.
Substance Use and Age of First Use
Past research suggests women typically use alcohol and report problem-drinking at a later age than men9,10. However, data indicate gender differences in alcohol initiation have become insignificant in recent years6.
Findings on differences in age of initiation for drug use vary based on the population under study. For example, in one study of middle-aged drug users with or at-risk of HIV infection, age of heroin and cocaine initiation occurred later for women compared with men11. Another study of individuals receiving methadone maintenance suggests women used hallucinogens, methadone, tranquilizers and PCP at a younger age compared with men12. Finally, among a sample of individuals addicted to opiates, age of first use was roughly equivalent for men and women13.
Gender, Age of First Use, and Rural Appalachia
In recent years there has been a growing interest in better understanding substance use, particularly in rural environments. Rural Appalachia is a particular area of interest given the recent attention and focus on the misuse and nonmedical use of prescription opiates14–16. More specifically, the 2005 NSDUH identifies many of the rural, Appalachian areas of Kentucky in the highest prevalence group when examining illicit drug use other than marijuana for persons aged 12 and older17. Recent studies have suggested differences in substance use patterns in rural Appalachia as compared with more urban environments16,18.
The purpose of this study is to examine differences in self-reported lifetime and past 30 day substance use as well as age of first use among a community sample of rural Appalachian drug users in Kentucky. The objective of this paper is to explore whether established differences in gender and age of first use exist within a rural Appalachian environment.
2. Methods
Data for this study were collected as part of a larger longitudinal study of social networks and HIV risk among rural Appalachian drug users funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. The primary aims of the study are to examine HIV and other infectious complications associated with drug use.
2.1. Participants
This study focuses on baseline data from 400 individuals. There were three eligibility criteria for study participation: 1) aged 18 and older, 2) living in a rural Appalachian Kentucky county, and 3) had used prescription opioids, cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine to get high in the past 30 days. The participants (N = 400) who were screened for study baseline participation reported using: prescription opioids (96.6%), cocaine (87%), methamphetamine (40%), and heroin (29.3%) to get high.
2.2. Measures
Addiction Severity Index (5th edition)
Measures from the Addiction Severity Index (ASI19) provided information on social and demographic characteristics, as well as lifetime, past 30 day, and age of first substance use. Slight modifications were made to the ASI categories of drugs to better examine prescription and other drugs of abuse within the study geographic area. For example, the ASI category “Other Opiates/Analgesics” was broken out into Oxycontin, other oxycodone, and hydrocodone. Additionally, crack cocaine and methamphetamine were included as specific categories. For each substance the participant endorsed ever using, follow-up questions were asked about the age of first use and the number of days of use in the past 30 days.
2.3. Procedure
Participants were recruited using respondent driven sampling (RDS). RDS has been used in other studies recruiting rural substance users20 and has benefits for recruiting and identifying those who would remain unidentified through other sampling techniques21,22. Flyers were posted in public locations to recruit the initial participants (i.e., seeds). One of the main aims of the larger study focuses on examining risk factors for HIV and other infectious complications associated with drug use, thus flyers specifically seeking injection drug users were utilized. Seeds were asked to participate in the study if they reported injection drug use in the past six months in addition to meeting all other eligibility criteria outlined above. Once the seeds were interviewed, drug-using friends were eligible to be sampled regardless of injection status. Each seed was given three coupons and asked to give them to his/her friends. If those who came into the study from a coupon were deemed eligible and subsequently interviewed, they were given three coupons and so on. For each coupon that was redeemed, the original participant was compensated $10. A similar RDS procedure is described in a publication by Wang and colleagues20. The procedure utilized in the current study is also described in detail in another forthcoming publication23.
Data were collected between November 2008 and February 2010. After consenting to participate, individuals completed an interviewer administered questionnaire. Responses were entered directly into a computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) program. Participants were primarily interviewed in the study office to ensure confidentiality of responses. Participants were compensated $50 for completing the questionnaire. The study received a full review and was approved by the University of Kentucky’s medical Institutional Review Board.
2.4. Statistical analysis
For the descriptive analysis, men and women were compared across demographic and drug use characteristics using chi-square and t-tests, where appropriate. All data were screened prior to analyzing to ensure analytic assumptions were met. No data transformations were necessary. Analyses for lifetime substance use included the entire sample (N = 400). Age of first use and past 30 day use analyses only included those who reported lifetime substance use. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine substance use controlling for social and demographic characteristics including: age, race, employment status, insurance status, and education level (see Table 1 for a more detailed description). ANCOVA analyses were used to examine age of first use controlling for the social and demographic factors described above, excluding age. In the multivariate analyses, the first category was the reference group for the categorical variables. STATA, version 10.0 was used for all analyses (College Station, TX). Significance is indicated by ***, ** or * for p values less than .001, .01 or .05, respectively.
Table 1.
Demographic Characteristics by Gender
Variable | Male n = 235 |
Female n = 135 |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
X̄ | SD | X̄ | SD | |
Age | 32.64 | 8.02 | 31.88 | 8.9 |
n | % | n | % | |
Race | ||||
White | 216 | 91.9% | 159 | 96.4% |
Non-White | 19 | 8.1% | 6 | 3.6% |
Employment* | ||||
Full-time | 91 | 38.7% | 48 | 29.1% |
Part-time | 59 | 25.1% | 37 | 22.4% |
Unemployed | 47 | 20.0% | 54 | 32.7% |
Education** | ||||
Less than HS grad | 100 | 42.6% | 70 | 42.4% |
HS graduation/GED | 108 | 46.0% | 58 | 35.2% |
Some college/more | 27 | 11.5% | 37 | 22.4% |
Health Insurance*** | ||||
Uninsured | 177 | 75.3% | 91 | 55.2% |
Private insurance | 9 | 3.8% | 7 | 4.2% |
Medicaid/Medicare | 49 | 20.9% | 67 | 40.6% |
p<.05,
p<.01,
p<.001
3. Results
As shown in Table 1, participants were 32 years old (X̄ = 32.33; median = 31.00; IQR = 12). The majority were Caucasian (94%) and male (59%). Significantly more females reported being unemployed (p = .049), having some college or more education (p = .007), and receiving Medicaid/Medicare (p = .000) when compared with males.
Substance Use
Rates of reported lifetime and past 30 day substance use were high. As shown in Table 2, more males reported lifetime use of alcohol (p=.038), heroin (p=.011), crack cocaine (p=.001), methamphetamine (p=.001), marijuana (p=.032), and hallucinogens (p=.000). More females reported lifetime use of hydrocodone (p=.042). Examining past 30 day substance use, more males reported any illegal drug use (p=.006) which included heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and hallucinogens. Specifically, more males reported past 30 day use of alcohol (p=.000), heroin (p=.004), and marijuana (p=.001). There were no gender differences in past 30 day use of prescription drugs.
Table 2.
Lifetime and Past 30 Day Substance Use Characteristics of Rural Drug Users by Gender
Variable | Male n = 235 |
Female n = 135 |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Lifetime Substance Use | ||||
n | % | n | % | |
Alcohol* | 235 | 100% | 162 | 98.2% |
Illicit Methadone | 222 | 94.5% | 157 | 95.2% |
OxyContin® | 223 | 94.9% | 154 | 93.3% |
Other Oxycodone | 223 | 94.9% | 156 | 94.6% |
Hydrocodone* | 226 | 96.2% | 164 | 99.4% |
Benzodiazepines | 225 | 95.7% | 157 | 95.2% |
Heroin* | 93 | 39.6% | 45 | 27.3% |
Cocaine | 223 | 94.9% | 152 | 92.1% |
Crack** | 187 | 79.6% | 107 | 64.9% |
Methamphetamine** | 118 | 50.2% | 56 | 33.9% |
Marijuana* | 232 | 98.7% | 157 | 95.2% |
Hallucinogens*** | 155 | 65.9% | 76 | 46.1% |
Past 30 Day Substance Use (Yes/No) | ||||
n | % | n | % | |
Alcohol*** | 145 | 61.7% | 71 | 43.0% |
Illicit Methadone | 143 | 60.9% | 100 | 60.6% |
OxyContin® | 166 | 70.6% | 107 | 64.9% |
Other Oxycodone | 162 | 68.9% | 117 | 70.9% |
Hydrocodone | 188 | 80.3% | 137 | 83.0% |
Benzodiazepines | 199 | 84.7% | 137 | 83.0% |
Any Illegal Use** | 173 | 73.6% | 100 | 60.6% |
Heroin** | 18 | 7.7% | 2 | 1.2% |
Cocaine | 63 | 26.8% | 33 | 20.0% |
Crack | 30 | 12.8% | 19 | 11.5% |
Methamphetamine | 7 | 2.9% | 4 | 2.4% |
Marijuana** | 161 | 68.5% | 87 | 52.7% |
Hallucinogens | 7 | 2.9% | 2 | 1.2% |
p<.05,
p<.01,
p<.001
Further examination of the number of days in the past 30 substances were used suggested that males reported more days of alcohol (X̄ males = 4.2, 95% CI = 4.1 – 6.3; X̄ females − 2.3, 95% CI = 1.4 – 3.2; p = .000) and marijuana (X̄ males = 13.2, 95% CI = 11.5 – 14.9; X̄ females − 9.2, 95% CI = 7.5 – 11.4; p = .004) use when compared to females. There were no significant differences in the number of days of use in the past 30 for any prescription drugs.
Age of First Use
Examining the age when each substance was first used, males reported use of alcohol (X̄ males = 13.6 (95% CI: 13.2, 14.0); X̄ females = 15.1 (95% CI: 14.6, 15.7; p=.000), cocaine (X̄ males = 20.9 (95% CI: 20.2, 21.8); X̄ females = 22.3 (95% CI: 21.2, 23.4; p=.042), marijuana (X̄ males = 13.9 (95% CI: 13.5, 14.5); X̄ females = 15.7 (95% CI: 14.9, 16.4; p=.0004), and hallucinogens (X̄ males = 18.1 (95% CI: 17.6, 18.7); X̄ females = 19.8 (95% CI: 18.6, 20.9; p=.002) at a significantly younger age than females. There were no significant differences for age of first use for any prescription drugs.
Multivariate Analyses
Logistic regression analyses were used to examine substance use in the past 30 days. After adjustment for socio-demographic characteristics, males were significantly more likely to report alcohol (AOR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.36, 3.29) and any illegal drug use (AOR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.95) in the past 30 days, including heroin (AOR: .132, 95% CI: .028, .628) and marijuana (AOR: .501, 95% CI: .321, .784). ANCOVA analyses were used to examine age of first use, adjusted means are shown in Table 3 and suggest that males were significantly younger than females for reported first use of: alcohol (p = .000), marijuana (p = .007), and hallucinogens (p = .009) after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics.
Table 3.
Adjusted Means for Age of First Substance Use for Rural Drug Users by Gender
Variable | Male n = 235 |
Female n = 135 |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
X̄ | 95% CI | X̄ | 95% CI | |
Age of First Use | ||||
Alcohol*** | 13.6 | 13.2 – 14.1 | 15.1 | 14.6 – 15.7 |
Illicit Methadone | 25.5 | 24.4 – 26.6 | 25.2 | 23.9 – 26.5 |
OxyContin® | 25.2 | 24.1 – 26.3 | 25.2 | 23.9 – 26.5 |
Other Oxycodone | 21.9 | 20.9 – 22.9 | 21.7 | 20.6 – 22.9 |
Hydrocodone | 19.6 | 18.7 – 20.4 | 20.6 | 19.6 – 21.6 |
Benzodiazepines | 19.5 | 18.5 – 20.4 | 20.3 | 19.2 – 21.4 |
Heroin | 24.6 | 23.3 – 25.9 | 22.8 | 20.9 – 24.6 |
Cocaine | 21.2 | 20.4 – 22.0 | 21.9 | 20.9 – 23.0 |
Crack | 23.3 | 22.2 – 24.4 | 23.6 | 22.1 – 25.0 |
Methamphetamine | 24.9 | 23.6 – 26.4 | 26.3 | 24.3 – 28.4 |
Marijuana** | 14.2 | 13.6 – 14.8 | 15.5 | 14.7 – 16.2 |
Hallucinogens** | 18.1 | 17.5 – 18.8 | 19.7 | 18.8 – 20.6 |
p<.05,
p<.01,
p<.001
4. Discussion
Rural Appalachia has influential cultural (i.e., poverty, educational attainment, religious beliefs) and geographic (i.e., social isolation) characteristics which results in differences from more urban communities24,25. These unique features of rural Appalachia make understanding and interpreting information as well as targeting the region and individuals who live within it, an interesting yet important challenge.
Findings from the current study suggest gender differences in lifetime and past 30 day substance use as well as age of first use among drug users in rural Appalachian Kentucky. Significantly more males reported lifetime and past 30 day use of alcohol as well as using at a younger age (13.6 years) when compared with females (15.1 years). These findings are congruent with data from large scale national surveys (i.e., 2005 NSDUH1, 2008 NSDUH2) and other previous studies9,10. While some literature suggests diminishing differences at the national level in age of first use for alcohol6, these differences hold true for this rural Appalachian drug-using population. Some evidence suggests individuals in rural Appalachia experience a lack of access to basic services and have a pervasive feeling of powerlessness over changing individual situations; both are mentioned as contributing factors to alcohol abuse25. It is also noteworthy that alcohol abuse exists despite the fact that the predominant religious belief among the Appalachian culture prohibits alcohol use25. Gender differences in substance use have been attributed to traditional gender stereotypes, differing social stigma, as well as disparate opportunities to use12. It is likely that some of these social characteristics are still present and influential in rural Appalachia, where women are often viewed differently. Rural environments are noted for unique attitudes, beliefs, social isolation26, and poverty27. More specifically, women in rural Appalachia are often expected to follow traditional gender stereotypes 25,28 (i.e., staying at home with children) and may be treated more as objects, rather than active participants in society29. Disparate opportunities to use may be particularly influential for alcohol use in rural Appalachia; some of the counties are still “dry,” that is they do not sell alcohol in the county lines30. Thus, transportation and access may influence ability to use.
Findings also suggest gender differences in lifetime, past 30 day, and age of first use for illegal/illicit drugs. More males report lifetime drug use including: heroin, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and hallucinogens. Gender differences were also present for heroin and marijuana use in the past 30 days. These findings are consistent with data collected as part of the 1996 NHSDA3 and 2008 NSDUH2 suggesting higher rates of lifetime drug use among men. It is noteworthy that even among a sample of individuals identified for study participation because of drug use, males still report the use of more illegal substances.
While more women reported lifetime use of hydrocodone, overall there were few gender and/or age differences in illicit prescription drug use. The lack of gender differences related to illicit sedative and opioid use is surprising considering past research has illuminated an increased risk for women abusing drugs designed to treat anxiety and sleeplessness5,7,8. As mentioned previously, rural Appalachian Kentucky has recently received focused national attention for high rates of misuse and nonmedical use of prescription opiates and sedative/benzodiazepines15,16,31,32. Recent data from the 2007–2008 NSDUH shows that Kentucky ranked in the top fifth of States for individuals reporting the use of pain relievers for non-medical purposes in the past year in each of three age groups (i.e., 12 to 17; 18 to 25; 26 and older) as well as for the total population aged 12 and older32. Previous research has suggested elevated rates of non-medical use of prescription drugs may be related to the high rates of disability present within this region16,33, which may be a risk factor for high levels of chronic pain. Further, other research has suggested that prescription drug use may not be perceived as high risk in comparison with other forms of drug use by individuals living in Appalachia34. More specifically, Logan and colleagues34 presented evidence from a random community survey that suggested the use of “nerve pills” (i.e., sedatives) was perceived as less risky than other types of illegal drug using behaviors (i.e., smoking marijuana, using cocaine/crack)34. While this study did not examine perceptions of prescription drug use/abuse, these views/attitudes could have a profound impact on the lack of differences in this study. Further, gender and age of initiation differences may not be statistically significant because use of these substances is so widespread among this sample.
This study has several noteworthy limitations. First, while self-report data has been identified as a valid method for assessing historical patterns of substance use35, it is also a concern that in interview settings participants may under-report behaviors. Second, while RDS helps recruit hidden populations, it is a non-probability purposive sample which limits the generalizability of findings. Third, this study includes individuals who have been enrolled because of reported use of prescription opioids, cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine to get high in the past 30 days. Findings should not be generalized to all rural Appalachian individuals. Finally, this paper offers only a preliminary understanding of gender and age of first use differences among drug users in rural Appalachian Kentucky. More in-depth study focusing on socio-cultural factors to better understand why these differences exist is still needed. The larger study from which this data is derived primarily focuses on understanding social networks particularly to examine risk factors for HIV and other infectious complications associated with drug use. Due to time limitations with participants, many questions/variables of importance for understanding gender differences (i.e., influences on initiation) were not included in the interview.
Limitations notwithstanding, findings from this study have implications for substance abuse early intervention, prevention and treatment efforts, especially among rural drug users. Results suggest that preventing initiation of alcohol and marijuana likely needs to start before age 13. Therefore, early intervention efforts should likely begin in elementary and middle school. And, while initiation of other substance use generally did not begin until late adolescence, studies suggest that early intervention is much more effective in preventing substance use than interventions that begin in later adolescence36,37. Prevention and intervention efforts targeting substance use in rural areas, particularly in Appalachia, must also take into account unique beliefs about the harmful nature of substance use34, values associated with the health care system as well as perceptions of the need for services 24,25,30. Past research has suggested a general reluctance of individuals in Appalachia to engage in health-related services related to the gap between the culture and values present in rural Appalachia and those present in service providing settings24. Additionally, individuals in rural Appalachia often emphasize the importance of informal measures to cope with physical and mental health problems 24,25. Further, given the importance of family in Appalachian cultures 25,30, it may be important to take into account individuals in close proximity who may be highly influential on intervention/treatment. Understanding and incorporating techniques to address unique cultural issues is integral to successful prevention and intervention. A primary issue for early intervention, prevention and treatment in rural Appalachia and other resource deprived areas is the lack of resources. Numerous studies indicate that substance abuse and other mental health resources are lacking in rural areas such as Appalachian Kentucky38,39 and rural men in particular are the least likely group to seek treatment40.
In conclusion, longitudinal study is warranted to determine whether there are gender differences in use trajectories over time, especially among those using prescription drugs non-medically. Longitudinal data will be available at the conclusion of the current study to further explore this area. Further, this topic warrants qualitative exploration to better understand the influence of gender on substance use among rural, Appalachian individuals. In addition to increasing substance abuse early intervention, prevention, and treatment, given the different use patterns between men and women in rural Appalachia, development of gender-specific resources may be beneficial in reducing the burden of substance use in this already resource-deprived area.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA024598; Jennifer Havens, Principal Investigator). We would also like to thank the study staff and participants in the SNAP study.
Reference List
- 1.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Rockville, MD: 2007. The NSDUH Report: Gender differences in alcohol use and alcohol dependence or abuse: 2004 and 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Vol. 2009. Office of Applied Studies; Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. SMA 09-4434. NSDUH Series H-36. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Brady K, Randall C. Gender differences in substance use disorders. Addictive Disorders. 1999;22:241–252. doi: 10.1016/s0193-953x(05)70074-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Brienza R, Stein M. Alcohol use disorders in primary care: Do gender specific differences exist. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2002;17:387–397. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10617.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.National Institute on Drug Abuse. Gender differences in drug abuse risks and treatment. 2000;Volume 15(Number 4) [Google Scholar]
- 6.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies; 1997. Substance abuse among women in the united states. NHSDA Series A-3, DHHS Publication No (SMA) 97-3162. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Grella C. From generic to gender-responsive treatment: Changes in social policies, treatment services, and outcomes of women in substance abuse treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2008 Supplement 5:327–343. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2008.10400661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Simoni-Wastila L, Strickler G. Risk factors associated with problem use of prescription drugs. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94:266–268. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.2.266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lex B. Gender differences in substance abuse. Advances in Substance Abuse. 1991;4:225–296. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Randall C, Roberts J, Del Boca F, Carroll K, Connors G, Mattson M. Telescoping of landmark events associated with drinking: A gender comparison. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1999;60:252–260. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1999.60.252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hartel D, Schoenbaum E, Lo Y, Klein R. Gender differences in illicit substance use among middle-aged drug users with or at risk for HIV infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2006;43:525–531. doi: 10.1086/505978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hser Y, Anglin M, McGlothlin W. Sex differences in addict careers. 1. Initiation of Use. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 1987;131:33–57. doi: 10.3109/00952998709001499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kosten T, Rounsaville B, Kleber H. Ethnic and gender differences among opiate addicts. The International Journal of the Addictions. 1985;20:1143–1162. doi: 10.3109/10826088509056356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Havens JR, Oser CB, Leukefeld CG, et al. Differences in prevalence of prescription opiate misuse among rural and urban probationers. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2007;33:309–317. doi: 10.1080/00952990601175078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Havens JR, Walker R, Leukefeld CG. Prevalence of opioid analgesic injection among rural nonmedical opioid analgesic users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;87:98–102. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Shannon L, Havens J, Mateyoke-Scrivner A, Leukefeld C, Walker R. Contextual differences in substance use among treatment-seeking women. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2010;35:59–62. doi: 10.1080/00952990802441394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Rockville, MD: Department for Health and Human Services. Office of Applied Studies; 2006. Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. 06-4194. NSDUH Series H-30. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Shannon L, Havens J, Hays L. Examining differences in substance use among rural and urban pregnant women. The American Journal on Addictions. 2010 doi: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2010.00079.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, et al. The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992;9:199–213. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wang J, Falck RS, Li L, Rahman A, Carlson RG. Respondent-driven sampling in the recruitment of illicit stimulant drug users in a rural setting: Findings and technical issues. Addict Behav. 2007;32:924–937. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.06.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems. 1997;44:174–199. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling II: Deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems. 2002;49:11–34. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Havens J, Oser C, Knudsen H, et al. Individual and network factors associated with nonfatal overdose among rural appalachian drug users. 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.11.003. xxxxxxxx. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hansen M, Resick L. Health beliefs, health care, and rural Appalachian subcultures from an ethnographic perspective. Family and Community Health. 1990;13:1–10. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Keefe S. Appalachian family ties. In: Keefe S, editor. Appalachian mental health. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press; 1988. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Coward R, DeWeaver K, Schmidt F, Jackson R. Distinctive features of rural environments: A frame of reference for mental health practice. Journal of Mental Health. 1983;12:3–24. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Appalachian Regional Commission. ARC-designated distressed counties, fiscal year 2009. 2010 Jun 5; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Latimer M, Oberhauser A. Exploring gender and economic development in appalachia. Journal of Appalachian Studies. 2004;10:269–291. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Massey C. Appalachian stereotypes: cultural history, gender, and sexual rhetoric. Journal of Appalachian Studies. 2007;13:124–136. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Meyer M, Toborg M, Denham S, Mande M. Cultural perspectives concerning adolescent use of tobacco and alcohol in the Appalachian mountain region. The Journal of Rural Health. 2008;24:67–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2008.00139.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Havens J, Simmons L, Shannon L, Hansen W. Factors associated with substance use during pregnancy: Results from a national sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2009;99:89–95. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies; 2010. State estimates for substance use from the 2007–2008 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. SMA 10-4472. NSDUH Series H-37. [Google Scholar]
- 33.McCoy J, Davis M, Hudson R. Geographic patterns of disability in the United States. Social Security Bulletin. 1994;57:25–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Logan T, Schenck J, Leukefeld C, Meyers J, Allen S. Rural attitudes, opinions, and drug use. Substance Use and Misuse. 1999;34:545–565. doi: 10.3109/10826089909037230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Sobell L, Sobell M. Timeline follow-back, a technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption. In: Litten R, Allen J, editors. Measuring alcohol consumption. Totowa: The Humana Press; 1992. pp. 41–72. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ellickson P, McCaffrey D, Ghosh-Dastidar B, Longshore D. New inroads in preventing adolescent drug use: Results from a large-scale trial of project ALERT in middle schools. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93:1830–1836. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.11.1830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Bell R, Ellickson P, Harrison E. Do drug prevention effects persist into high school? How project ALERT did with ninth graders. 22. 1993;4:483. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1993.1038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Hauenstein E, Petterson S, Rovnyak V, Merwin E, Heise B, Wagner D. Rurality and mental health treatment. Adminstration and Policy in Mental Health. 2007;34:255–267. doi: 10.1007/s10488-006-0105-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Wang P, Lane M, Olfson M, Pincus H, Wells K, Kessler R. Twelve-month use of mental health services in the United States: Results from teh National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005:629–640. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Hauenstein E, Petterson S, Merwin E, Rovnyak V, Heise B, Wagner D. Rurality, gender, and mental health treatment. Family & Community Health. 2006 Jul–Sep;:169–185. doi: 10.1097/00003727-200607000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]