
==== Front
Drug Alcohol Depend Rep
Drug Alcohol Depend Rep
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports
2772-7246
Elsevier

S2772-7246(24)00063-5
10.1016/j.dadr.2024.100279
100279
Full Length Report
The substance use disorder treatment gap among US college students: Findings from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
Pasman Emily pasman@med.umich.edu
a⁎
Blair Lisa b
Solberg Marvin A. ac
McCabe Sean Esteban ac
Schepis Ty ad
Resko Stella M. ef
a Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan, 400 N Ingalls St,, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
b College of Nursing, Wayne State University, 5557 Cass Ave, Detroit, MI, USA
c Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
d Department of Psychology, Texas State University, 614 N Guadalupe St, San Marcos, TX, USA
e School of Social Work, Wayne State University, 5447 Woodward Ave, Detroit, MI, USA
f Merrill Palmer Skillman Institute, Wayne State University, 71 E Ferry St, Detroit, MI, USA
⁎ Corresponding author. pasman@med.umich.edu
30 8 2024
9 2024
30 8 2024
12 10027925 4 2024
12 8 2024
28 8 2024
© 2024 Published by Elsevier B.V.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Background

Substance use and substance use disorders (SUD) are prevalent among college students. Information about the gap between substance use treatment need versus treatment receipt can guide efforts to increase service access. This study examined past-year DSM-5 SUD and receipt of treatment among US college students.

Methods

Past-year DSM-5 SUD and treatment receipt were estimated among a sample of 6115 college students aged 16 and older and a comparison group of non-students from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, weighted to be nationally representative. Among the college student sample, multiple logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with past-year SUD. Bivariate analyses were used to compare socio-demographic and substance use differences between college students who received treatment and those who had an SUD but did not receive treatment.

Results

Weighted prevalence of past-year SUD among college students was 21.8 %. Only 4.6 % of students who had an SUD received treatment in any setting. Relative to non-students with SUD, proportionately fewer college students with SUD received treatment. Among college students, age, sex, past-year psychological distress, and past-year substance use were significantly associated with past-year SUD; and receipt of treatment differed significantly by age, insurance type, level of education, and enrollment status. College students who received treatment had greater prevalence of stimulant, opioid, tranquilizer, and poly-SUDs and more severe SUD symptomology than those who did not receive treatment.

Conclusion

Additional efforts are needed to engage college students with SUDs in acceptable, evidence-based treatment services.

Highlights

• An estimated 21 % of US college students met DSM-5 criteria for an SUD in 2021.

• Less than 5 % of college students with an SUD received treatment.

• Treatment receipt differed by age, insurance, level of education, and enrollment.

• Receipt of treatment also varied based on SUD severity and type.

Keywords

College student
Treatment gap
Substance use disorder
Substance use
Treatment need
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Substance use and related harms are highly prevalent on college campuses (Arterberry et al., 2020, Patrick et al., 2023). In 2022, college students demonstrated a higher prevalence of alcohol use (80.5 % vs 72.7 % in the past year) and binge drinking (27.7 % vs 23.9 % in the past two weeks) than non-college student young adults (Patrick et al., 2023). Among US college students, rates of alcohol and cannabis co-use have increased over time, demonstrating an annualized change of 46 % from 2002 to 2018 (McCabe et al., 2021). Recent years have also seen a statistically significant upward trend in simultaneous use of alcohol and cannabis among US college students ages 18–22 (Hai et al., 2022). Although less prevalent, approximately 5.6 % of college students report past-year nonmedical prescription drug use (Patrick et al., 2023), with estimates ranging from 8.4 % for prescription stimulants to 3.7 % for prescription opioids (American College Health Association., 2023). Students who use prescription drugs nonmedically are more likely to meet criteria for a substance use disorder (SUD) (McCabe et al., 2021). The use of other drugs, such as hallucinogens and cocaine, is also more common among college students than the general US population of individuals aged 12 and older (5.0 % versus 3.0 % and 3.3 % versus 1.9 %, respectively) (Patrick et al., 2023, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2023). Taken together, these patterns contribute to estimates suggesting a high prevalence of SUDs on US college campuses (Arterberry et al., 2020, Caldeira et al., 2009).

Substance use and SUDs can lead to academic, social, and health consequences. Students with frequent or heavy substance use often grapple with academic setbacks, including lower grade point averages, reduced study hours, class absenteeism, attrition, and post-graduation unemployment (McAlaney et al., 2020, Palmer et al., 2012, Welsh et al., 2019). Furthermore, left unaddressed, SUD can precipitate early morbidity and mortality, underscoring the urgency of specialty treatment and health care (Sanchez-Roige et al., 2022). For example, over 1500 college students die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor-vehicle crashes (Hingson et al., 2017). In addition to these human costs, the economic cost of SUD exceeds $700 billion annually in healthcare, social service, criminal/legal, and reduced productivity (McCollister et al., 2017).

Several efficacious psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for SUD exist (Boness et al., 2023, Davis et al., 2016, Kelly et al., 2020, Wakeman et al., 2020), including interventions tailored to the needs and preferences of college students (Welsh et al., 2019). For example, screening and brief intervention programs (Hennessy et al., 2019, Seigers and Carey, 2010) and internet- and smartphone-delivered interventions (Watkins and Sprang, 2018) have been shown to reduce the quantity, frequency, and negative consequences associated with alcohol use among college students. The past two decades have seen enormous growth of collegiate recovery programs, campus-based SUD recovery support services (Ashford et al., 2018). Still, few people who could benefit from treatment receive it. National estimates suggest that only about 13 % of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for an SUD receive specialty treatment (Sahker et al., 2024). This disparity between treatment need and treatment receipt is commonly referred to as the treatment gap.

The magnitude of the treatment gap varies based on clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Among US individuals aged 12 or older with an SUD, Asian Americans are less likely to receive treatment than their White counterparts (Sahker et al., 2023), and adolescents and young adults are less likely to receive treatment than adults aged 26 or older (Lipari et al., 2017). Treatment utilization is greater among people with opioid use disorder relative to people with alcohol or cannabis use disorder, and among people with severe SUDs relative to people with mild or moderate SUDs (Bohler, 2023). Together, these trends suggest the treatment gap may be greater among college students, particularly given social norms surrounding alcohol and cannabis use on college campuses (Willis et al., 2019). A 2009 study of undergraduate students at a large public university estimated that nearly half of all students met criteria for an SUD at some point during their first three years of college, and only 9 % of those with an SUD sought help (Caldeira et al., 2009). However, current and national information about past-year treatment need and utilization among US college students is limited.

In recent years, social distancing measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 have impacted college student substance use and treatment access. An estimated one in four college students increased their use, while about a third decreased their use (Firkey et al., 2022). In-person service use declined, and many treatment services moved to the virtual environment (Saloner et al., 2022). Given the shifting substance use landscape on US college campuses – both prior to (McCabe et al., 2021) and following (Firkey et al., 2022) the COVID pandemic – updated knowledge about the treatment gap among college students is warranted. This study uses nationally representative data to examine prevalence and correlates of treatment need and receipt of treatment among US college students.

2 Material and methods

The 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a cross-sectional survey administered by the SAMHSA via in-person household and computer-based interviews. The survey is part of a series (1971 to present) administered annually that can be weighted to be representative of US non-institutionalized civilians ages 12 years and older. Data are collected in each state and the District of Columbia. Respondents provide a variety of demographic, mental health, substance use, and treatment-related information. Further detail about NSDUH procedures has been published elsewhere (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration., 2022). All respondents were asked if they “go to school.” Those who responded affirmatively were asked what grade they were in. The analytic sample for the present study included persons ages 16 and older who reported being in their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth or higher year of college or university at the time of the survey, and a comparison sample of non-students aged 16 and older who met DSM-5 criteria for an SUD. This secondary data analysis was deemed exempt from review by the Wayne State University Institutional Review Board.

2.1 Measures

2.1.1 Past-year SUD and receipt of treatment

Past-year SUD and receipt of treatment were coded dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes). Following NSDUH’s approach, participants were classified as having a past-year SUD if they met DSM-5 criteria for an alcohol or other drug use disorder and/or if they received SUD treatment in the past year in any setting (i.e., a hospital, inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation facility, mental health center, emergency room, doctor’s office, carceral facility, mutual aid group, or virtually). Treatment setting was categorized as specialty, physical/mental healthcare, mutual aid group, criminal legal system, virtual/telehealth, or any setting, each coded dichotomously as non-mutually exclusive categories, as individuals may have received treatment via multiple settings and modalities. Participants who indicated that they had received treatment for alcohol or other drug use in any setting in the past year were considered to have received treatment.

2.1.2 Substance use

Past-year use of alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants; and nonmedical use of prescription opioids, prescription stimulants, and prescription benzodiazepines were each measured dichotomously (0 = no use, 1 = past year use). These data were used to construct a past-year polysubstance use variable based on the number of substances endorsed (0, 1, 2, 3 or more). DSM-5 criteria were used to assess for past-year alcohol, cannabis, stimulant, opioid, hallucinogen, inhalant, and tranquilizer use disorders, individually (0 = no use disorder, 1 = use disorder). With these data, following the approach of Peltier et al. (2022), past-year poly-SUD was coded in three categories (1 SUD, 2 SUDs, 3 or more SUDs). SUD severity was coded as 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate-to-severe. Past-year substance use and polysubstance use were examined as independent variables in analyses comparing college students with SUD to those without, and past-year SUD type and poly-SUD were examined in analyses limited to those with an SUD.

2.1.3 Psychological distress

Past-year psychological distress was measured using the Kessler Psychological Distress (K-6) scale (Kessler et al., 2002). The K-6 is a validated instrument for measuring recent non-specific psychological distress that is included in the PhenX toolkit (Hamilton et al., 2011) and widely used in substance use research (e.g., Klein and Washington, 2023; Mark et al., 2021; Verplaetse et al., 2021; Weinberger et al., 2019). The questionnaire consists of six items measuring frequency of symptoms of psychological distress (e.g., feeling nervous, hopeless, restless, sad) on a five-point scale ranging from all of the time (= 4) to none of the time (= 0). For the current study, for consistency with the past-year SUD measure, participants were asked to think about one month in the past year when their symptoms were the worst. The six items were summed for a total possible score ranging 0–24. Higher scores indicate greater past-year psychological distress.

2.1.4 Sociodemographics

Demographic variables were coded categorically and included biological sex (male, female), age (16–20, 21–25, 26+), level of education (graduate, undergraduate), enrollment status (full-time, part-time), insurance type (private or combination of public and private, public-only, uninsured), and self-identified race or ethnicity. Racial-ethnic identity was coded as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic multiracial, and Hispanic. Individuals who identified as Native American, Alaska Native, Hawaiian Native, and other Pacific Islander were excluded due to low sample sizes within the analytic sample. Sexual orientation (coded dichotomously as heterosexual or gay/lesbian/bisexual) was included in the bivariate analyses only as this question was not asked of individuals under age 18.

2.2 Analysis

Data cleaning and analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. Survey procedures were used for all weighted analyses with provided sample weights to adjust for nonresponse, noncoverage, and oversampling in some groups and to enhance generalizability of inferences. Missingness was minimal in the dataset, as variables were selected when possible that contained previously imputed values. However, the NOMCAR statement was included in the logistic regression to reduce potential for bias by including cases with missing values in the variance estimation for the full model.

Weighted frequencies were calculated and compared using Rao-Scott χ2. Percentages and p values reported in Table 1, Table 2, Table 4, and S1 are weighted, while the frequencies are reported as unweighted to enhance interpretability. Weighted bivariate analyses were used to compare college students with SUDs to those without SUD (Table 1) and college students with SUDs to non-students with SUDs (Table 2). A multiple logistic regression model was calculated among the college student sample to examine the relationship between past-year SUD and various demographic characteristics and substance use patterns (Table 3). A regression analysis was performed to evaluate for multicollinearity and all VIFs were <1.5, indicating minimal multicollinearity unlikely to affect the results of the final model. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) and were considered statistically significant if the CIs did not contain 1. Though we initially planned a logistic regression to examine factors associated with receipt of treatment among college students with a past-year SUD, this was not feasible due in part to the small number of persons who received treatment (weighted 1.5 %, unweighted n = 56 of 1211 who met criteria for SUD) and the small cell sizes (< 5) that violate the assumptions of the logistic regression model; such an analysis would require a sample size of approximately 1667 individuals considering the low rate of treatment receipt. Thus, weighted bivariate analyses were examined to compare those who received treatment to those who had an SUD but did not receive treatment (Table 4). Odds ratios were calculated for these bivariate analyses. Supplemental analyses were conducted to explore severity of SUDs by SUD type and to examine the contribution of polysubstance use to college student SUDs (Tables S1, S2).Table 1 Characteristics of college student sample from the 2021 National Survey of Drug Use and Health.

Table 1	College Students with SUD (n = 1327)	College Students without SUD (n = 4850)	p	
Sample Characteristics	Unweighted n	Weighted %	Unweighted n	Weighted %		
Age					<.0001	
20 years or younger	404	22.9	1832	33.0		
21–25 years	592	39.3	1805	27.6		
26 years or older	331	37.8	1213	39.4		
Sex					.3575	
Male	572	48.9	1985	46.1		
Female	755	51.1	2865	53.9		
Race and Ethnicity					.0172	
Non-Hispanic White	760	56.2	2544	50.9		
Non-Hispanic Black	139	13.5	565	16.3		
Non-Hispanic Asian	70	5.6	496	9.5		
Non-Hispanic Multiracial	66	3.7	221	1.9		
Hispanic	278	20.9	974	21.4		
Sexual orientationa					<.0001	
Heterosexual	923	76.8	3990	86.3		
Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	362	23.2	731	13.7		
Education level					.3211	
Graduate	254	20.6	1034	22.9		
Undergraduate	1073	79.4	3816	77.1		
Enrollment status					.0369	
Full-time	882	60.5	3515	66.0		
Part-time	440	39.5	1307	34.0		
Insurance type					.0461	
Uninsured	113	9.3	463	10.6		
Public insurance only	301	28.8	1039	23.0		
Private insurance	860	62.8	3192	66.4		
Past-year psychological distress: 0 – 24, (M) [SD]b	(11.93)	[7.04]	(7.80)	[6.75]	<.0001	
Past-year substance use						
Alcohol	1244	94.1	2946	61.6	<.0001	
Cannabis	944	69.2	873	19.2	<.0001	
Cocaine	142	10.2	40	0.9	<.0001	
Methamphetamines	24	2.5	3	<0.1	<.0001	
Heroinc	6	0.2	2	0.2	.0063	
Hallucinogens	256	17.6	101	1.8	<.0001	
Inhalants	56	3.2	26	0.4	<.0001	
Nonmedical use of prescription opioids	78	6.3	62	1.0	<.0001	
Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants	142	10.0	66	0.9	<.0001	
Nonmedical use of prescription benzodiazepines	81	4.6	26	0.4	<.0001	
Past-year polysubstance use					<.0001	
0 substances	20	1.1	1805	35.8		
1 substance	345	27.7	2147	45.5		
2 substances	551	41.6	718	15.5		
3+ substances	411	29.5	180	3.2		
Note: aFrequency estimates for sexual orientation should be interpreted with caution, as this question was not administered to persons under age 18. bContinuous scores for psychological distress were obtained using unweighted means and standard deviations for interpretability. Mean comparison was conducted using a survey-weighted ANOVA. cComparisons and weighted estimates should be interpreted with caution in the presence of small cell sizes. Bold font indicates p values <.05

Table 2 Frequencies (unweighted n and weighted %) and Rao-Scott chi-square statistics comparing people not in college with a past-year substance use disorder (SUD) to college students with a past-year SUD.

Table 2	College Students with SUD (n = 1327)	Non-students with SUD (n = 9138)	p	
Sample Characteristics	Unweighted n	Weighted %	Unweighted n	Weighted %		
Past-year substance use						
Alcohol	1244	94.1	7972	86.3	<.0001	
Cannabis	944	69.2	5543	54.3	<.0001	
Cocaine	142	10.2	762	8.2	.1312	
Methamphetamines	24	2.5	406	4.5	.0854	
Heroina	6	0.2	189	2.4	<.0001	
Hallucinogens	256	17.6	1219	10.6	<.0001	
Inhalants	56	3.2	335	2.5	.2968	
Nonmedical use of prescription opioids	78	6.3	999	10.6	.0032	
Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants	142	10.0	659	5.7	.0006	
Nonmedical use of prescription benzodiazepines	81	4.6	623	5.7	.2323	
Past-year SUD type						
Alcohol	886	69.1	5521	62.8	.0038	
Cannabis	604	43.2	3605	32.9	<.0001	
Stimulants	117	9.6	817	8.8	.5776	
Opioids	57	4.6	988	12.7	<.0001	
Hallucinogens	28	1.4	112	1.0	.3040	
Inhalantsa	4	0.5	84	0.8	.5640	
Tranquilizers	45	2.7	440	4.7	.0305	
Past-year poly-SUD					.0002	
1 SUD	993	76.6	6999	78.8		
2 SUDs	253	17.3	1581	15.4		
3+ SUDs	71	5.9	414	4.2		
SUD severity					<.0001	
None	58	3.8	702	9.1		
Mild	663	46.8	4485	50.7		
Moderate to severe	606	49.4	3951	40.2		
Past-year treatment receipt						
Specialty treatment	15	2.9	165	3.6	.6140	
Physical/mental health care	42	2.5	497	5.8	.0005	
Mutual aid group	20	2.1	285	3.5	.0999	
Criminal legal system	2	0.4	59	0.7	.4347	
Virtual/telehealth treatment	29	2.2	379	4.0	.0956	
Any setting	58	4.6	708	8.1	.0169	
Note: aComparisons and weighted estimates should be interpreted with caution in the presence of small cell sizes. Abbreviations: SUD, substance use disorder.

Table 3 Logistic regression predicting past-year DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) among college students (n = 6113).

Table 3Predictor (reference category)	Adjusted Odds Ratio	95 % Confidence Intervals (CI)	
Age (16–20 years old)			
21–25 years old	1.60	1.21–2.12	
26 and older	1.57	0.99–2.49	
Sex (female)			
Male	1.54	1.15–2.05	
Race (non-Hispanic White)			
Hispanic	1.13	0.81–1.59	
Non-Hispanic Black or African American	1.09	0.68–1.78	
Non-Hispanic Asian	0.84	0.42–1.68	
Non-Hispanic multiracial	1.93	0.81–4.59	
Education level (undergraduate)			
Graduate	0.76	0.48–1.19	
Enrollment status (full-time)			
Part-time	1.21	0.87–1.68	
Insurance type (private)			
Uninsured	1.02	0.67–1.56	
Public only	1.45	0.98–2.14	
Past-year psychological distress	1.07	1.05–1.10	
Past-year substance use			
Alcohol	5.49	3.76–8.01	
Cannabis	4.98	3.62–6.85	
Cocaine	1.97	0.95–4.07	
Methamphetamine	14.04	1.82–108.00	
Heroin	0.17	0.02–1.32	
Hallucinogens	2.27	1.34–3.84	
Inhalants	1.52	0.39–5.95	
Nonmedical use of prescription opioids	3.80	1.43–10.09	
Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants	2.89	1.25–6.73	
Nonmedical use of prescription benzodiazepines	4.63	1.85–11.58	
Note: Overall, 21.0 % (n = 1267) of college students met criteria for a substance use disorder in the past year and/or received SUD treatment in any setting. Bolded values indicate p <.05. The psychological distress scale (K-6) was entered as a continuous variable; therefore, the odds ratio indicates the change in odds associated with a 1-point increase on the scale.

Table 4 Bivariate comparisons between college students who met criteria for a DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) but did not receive treatment and those who received substance use treatment in any setting.

Table 4Sample Characteristics	Treatment Not Received (n= 1327) Frequency (weighted %)	Treatment Received (n= 58) Frequency (weighted %)	p-value	
Age			.0051	
20 years or younger	390 (23.6)	14 (8.2)		
21–25 years	573 (40.0)	19 (26.5)		
26 years or older	306 (36.5)	25 (65.3)		
Sex			.1137	
Male	549 (48.0)	23 (66.1)		
Female	720 (52.0)	35 (33.9)		
Race and Ethnicity			.2814	
Non-Hispanic White	729 (56.8)	31 (44.6)		
Non-Hispanic Black	136 (13.7)	3 (8.8)		
Non-Hispanic Asian	69 (5.8)	1 (2.6)		
Non-Hispanic Multiracial	58 (3.4)	8 (10.2)		
Hispanic	265 (20.3)	13 (33.7)		
Sexual orientationa			.1905	
Heterosexual	884 (76.7)	39 (80.1)		
Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	344 (23.3)	18 (19.9)		
Education level			.0289	
Undergraduate	1022 (78.7)	51 (93.3)		
Graduate	247 (21.3)	7 (6.7)		
Enrollment status			.0012	
Full-time	853 (61.9)	29 (30.0)		
Part-time	412 (38.1)	28 (70.0)		
Insurance type			.0100	
Uninsured	110 (9.1)	3 (14.2)		
Public insurance only	275 (26.4)	26 (59.1)		
Private insurance	835 (64.4)	25 (26.6)		
Past-year SUD type				
Alcohol use disorder	849 (68.8)	37 (76.4)	.4564	
Cannabis use disorder	579 (42.5)	25 (56.9)	.2899	
Stimulant use disorder	106 (8.2)	11 (38.9)	<.0001	
Opioid use disorder	49 (3.7)	8 (23.8)	.0003	
Hallucinogen use disorderb	25 (1.3)	3 (4.6)	.1115	
Inhalant use disorderb	4 (0.6)	0	-	
Tranquilizer use disorder	37 (2.2)	8 (13.3)	.0001	
Past-year poly-SUD			<.0001	
1 SUD	974 (78.9)	19 (30.0)		
2 SUDs	237 (16.8)	16 (30.2)		
3+ SUDs	58 (4.3)	13 (39.8)		
SUD severity			.0005	
Mild	658 (50.5)	5 (9.4)		
Moderate to severe	564 (49.5)	42 (90.6)		
Note: aFrequency estimates for sexual orientation are conducted only in those ages 18 years and older as this question was not administered to youth. bWeighted percentages and statistical tests should be interpreted with caution in the presence of small cell sizes. Use disorder variable frequency estimates in the treatment received column and p values should be interpreted with caution due to small cell sizes. Abbreviations: SUD, substance use disorder. Bold font indicates p values <.05.

3 Results

More than one in five college students (unweighted n = 1327, weighted frequency 21.8 %) met DSM-5 criteria for an SUD in the past year. College students with SUDs differed from college students who did not meet criteria for an SUD (Table 1). Briefly, proportionally more students who reported SUDs were 21–25 years old (p <.0001), non-Hispanic White (p =.0172), gay/lesbian/bisexual (p <.0001), part-time students (p =.0369), and publicly insured (p =.0461). Those who met criteria for an SUD also reported greater psychological distress (M = 11.93, SD = 7.04) than those without an SUD (M = 7.80, SD = 6.75, p <.0001). As shown in Table 1, past-year substance use was more prevalent among students with SUDs for all substances assessed (ps <.01).

3.1 Comparison between college students with SUD and non-students with SUD

As shown in Table 2, compared to non-students with SUDs, proportionally more college students with SUDs endorsed past-year use of alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogens, and nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (ps <.0001), but fewer endorsed past-year use of heroin (p <.0001) and prescription opioids (p =.0006). College students with SUDs met SUD criteria for two (17.3 % compared to 15.4 %) and three or more substances (5.9 % compared to 4.2 %) at higher rates compared to non-students with SUD (p =.0002). The prevalence of specific types of SUDs varied significantly between college students with any SUD and non-college students with any SUD; college students had higher prevalence of alcohol use disorder (69.1 % compared to 62.8 %, p =.0038) and cannabis use disorder (43.2 % compared to 32.9 %, p <.0001), but lower prevalence of opioid use disorder (4.6 % compared to 12.7 %, p <.0001) and tranquilizer use disorder (2.7 % compared to 4.7 %, p =.0305). Students with SUD and non-students with SUD were also compared on SUD severity; compared to non-students, students had greater prevalence of moderate-to-severe SUDs (49.5 % compared to 40.2 %, p <.0001). Proportionally more students had moderate-to-severe alcohol (p =.0470) and cannabis (p <.0001) use disorders, but were comparable in severity to non-students on all other SUD types (Table S1). Past-year treatment receipt was significantly different between college students and non-students, with students having lower prevalence of treatment in any setting (4.6 % compared to 8.1 %, p =.0169) and at physical or mental health care facilities (2.5 % compared to 5.8 %, p =.0005).

3.2 Predictors of SUD among college students

Factors associated with past-year SUD are presented in Table 3. Compared to younger students (ages 16–20), students who were 21–25 years old had increased odds of meeting DSM-5 SUD criteria (aOR = 1.60, 95 % CI 1.21–2.12). Male students had greater odds of past-year SUD than female students (aOR = 1.54, 95 % CI 1.15–2.05). Greater past-year psychological distress was associated with increased odds of past-year SUD; each 1-point increase in past-year psychological distress was accompanied by a small but statistically significant increase in odds of past-year SUD (aOR = 1.07, 95 % CI 1.05–1.10).

Students were more likely to meet DMS-5 criteria for an SUD if they reported past-year use of alcohol (aOR = 5.49, 95 % CI 3.76–8.01), cannabis (aOR = 4.98, 95 % CI 3.62–6.85), or hallucinogens (aOR = 2.27, 95 % CI 1.34–3.84); or nonmedical use of prescription opioids (aOR 3.80, 95 % CI 1.43–10.09), stimulants (aOR = 2.89, 95 % CI 1.25–6.73), or benzodiazepines (aOR = 4.63, 95 % CI 1.85–11.58). Use of methamphetamine (aOR = 14.04, 95 % CI 1.82–108.00) was also significantly associated with the odds of SUD, however this should be interpreted with caution given the small cell sizes for methamphetamine use and the wide confidence intervals. No differences were found among those who used heroin, cocaine, or inhalants. A supplemental analysis was conducted to explore the contribution of polysubstance use to college student SUDs (Table S2). Compared to students who reported past-year use of one substance, those who used two substances had over four times greater odds of meeting DSM-5 criteria for an SUD (aOR 4.08, 95 % CI 3.00–5.60) and those who used three or more substances had over 13 times greater odds of meeting SUD criteria (aOR 13.05, 95 % CI 9.34–18.24).

3.3 Treatment Receipt

While more than one out of five college students met DSM-5 criteria for a past-year SUD, only 1.1 % of college students received treatment in the past year (unweighted n = 58, 4.6 % of those with an SUD). Students who had an SUD but did not receive treatment differed from students who received treatment on multiple sociodemographic and substance use indicators (Table 4). At the bivariate level, receipt of treatment differed by age, with proportionately more older students having received treatment (p =.0051). Receipt of treatment was more prevalent among students who were enrolled part-time compared to full-time students (p =.0012), and among undergraduates compared to graduate students (p =.0289). Regarding insurance type, proportionally more students with public insurance or no insurance had received treatment, whereas proportionately fewer with private insurance had received treatment (p =.0100). The prevalence of specific types of SUD varied between those who did and did not receive treatment; those who received treatment had greater prevalence of stimulant use disorder (OR = 7.17, 95 % CI 2.19–23.48, p <.0001), opioid use disorder (OR = 8.22, 95 % CI 1.94–34.72, p =.0003), and tranquilizer use disorder (OR = 6.74, 95 % CI 2.21–20.60, p <.0001). No statistically significant associations were found related to alcohol, cannabis, or hallucinogen use disorders (ps >.10) and no person who met criteria for inhalant use disorder received treatment. The prevalence of two SUDs (30.2 % compared to 16.8 %) and three or more SUDs (39.8 % compared to 4.3 %, p <.0001) was higher among those who received treatment. Finally, moderate-to-severe SUDs were more prevalent among those who had received treatment (p =.0005).

4 Discussion

Substance use treatment utilization was low among this nationally representative sample of US college students. While more than one in five college students met criteria for a DSM-5 SUD, less than one in 20 (4.6 %) of those with an SUD received treatment. This discrepancy is larger than the treatment gap observed among non-students in this sample (8.1 %), the general US population, and other subpopulations of people with SUDs, including young adults (Krawczyk et al., 2022, Mekonen et al., 2021, Sahker et al., 2024). Findings indicate a need for increased education and outreach among college students and highlight considerations for engaging college students in treatment services.

Among college students, age, sex, past-year psychological distress, and past-year substance use were significantly associated with past-year SUD. Like the general US population, male students were more likely to meet SUD criteria than females; however, research suggests sex and gender differences in SUD are narrowing and should continue to be monitored among the college student population (McHugh et al., 2018). Findings related to age demonstrate an increased likelihood of SUD among college students ages 21–25. These findings extend on prior research which has primarily examined SUDs among younger, traditionally aged college students (Arterberry et al., 2020, Caldeira et al., 2009). Our findings are in line with a large body of research showing substance use and SUDs tend to increase in adolescence and peak in young adulthood (McCabe et al., 2019, Patrick et al., 2023), and underscore the importance of considering both traditional-aged and non-traditional (i.e., older) college students when designing campus-based health programs. The association between higher levels of psychological distress and SUD signals the importance of integrated mental health and substance use services. Integrated care is associated with better outcomes, and specialty treatment providers serving college students should be prepared to assess and address co-occurring psychiatric conditions (Sterling et al., 2011, Weiss et al., 2007, Weiss et al., 2009).

While part-time students were no more likely than full-time students to have an SUD, proportionately more part-time students had received treatment. It could be that students who received treatment reduced their course load to part-time so that they could better balance academic demands with their treatment or recovery. Alternatively, it is also possible that many part-time students were employed and were more likely to be detected and seek treatment when their SUD impacted their work performance. Prospective data is needed in future research to examine these factors and establish directionality. Similarly, we found undergraduate and graduate students were equally likely to meet DSM-5 SUD criteria, but proportionately more undergraduate students had received treatment. If replicated, these findings may indicate a need to increase treatment accessibility for graduate students in rigorous academic programs via flexible service delivery (e.g., telehealth), open curriculums (e.g., online courses), and appropriate accommodations (e.g., through student disability services). Qualitative interviews with students in recovery suggest flexible curriculums help make higher education more attainable for people in or seeking SUD recovery (Pasman et al., 2024). Further research is needed to examine the mechanisms underlying the associations between education level, enrollment status, and treatment receipt, to facilitate treatment engagement among full-time and graduate students with SUD.

Stimulant use disorder, opioid use disorder, tranquilizer use disorder, and poly-SUDs were more prevalent among college students who received treatment relative to those who did not receive treatment. Conversely, proportionately fewer students with a single SUD received treatment, and alcohol and cannabis use disorders were not significantly associated with treatment utilization. However, among college students and non-students with alcohol and cannabis use disorders, college students had greater SUD symptom severity. These findings may be related to social norms surrounding alcohol and cannabis use on college campuses (Willis et al., 2019). Lack of SUD recognition is the number one reason people with an SUD do not receive treatment (SAMHSA, 2023). Previous research has shown college students often overestimate the substance use of their peers (Cox et al., 2019, Dempsey et al., 2016). It could be that because alcohol and cannabis use are perceived as prevalent or socially acceptable, students with symptomatic use do not consider their use to be problematic. Alternatively, it is possible that students with alcohol or cannabis use disorders recognize a need for treatment, but do not feel ready to seek treatment because of the role of alcohol and/or cannabis use in campus life. Indeed, qualitative studies have found students in SUD recovery often perceive alcohol and other drug use to be central to campus culture, which is discussed as a threat to students’ recovery efforts (Ashford et al., 2018, Hennessy et al., 2021, Terrion, 2013). Campus-based social norms campaigns have been shown to reduce alcohol and other drug use among college students, particularly those who overestimate the use of their peers (Hembroff et al., 2021, Mattern and Neighbors, 2004, Pischke et al., 2021). Messages that portray heavy alcohol and cannabis use as the exception rather than the norm may shift perceptions and encourage help-seeking among students with alcohol and cannabis use disorders. However, research to explore perceptions of treatment need and barriers to treatment utilization among college students with alcohol and cannabis use disorder is needed.

Though natural recovery from SUDs does occur (e.g., “maturing out”, Lee and Sher, 2018), outcomes tend to be better with early intervention (Carney and Myers, 2012, Stockings et al., 2016). Further, most adolescents with severe SUD symptoms do not age out of symptomatic use over a 32-year period (McCabe et al., 2022). In the current study, approximately half of college students with an SUD had moderate-to-severe symptomology. Moreover, poly-SUDs and moderate-to-severe SUDs were more prevalent among students with any SUD compared to non-students with any SUD. Therefore, increasing the accessibility and acceptability of treatment services among college student populations is important. Some research suggests young people with substance use concerns are often interested in non-abstinent treatment goals, and many who feel they have resolved a past substance use concern do not consider themselves to be “in recovery” (Pasman et al., 2023, Smith et al., 2023, Subbaraman and Witbrodt, 2014). A harm reduction approach may therefore be more palatable for some college students with SUDs and should be offered alongside traditional abstinence-based treatment programs. Indeed, data from focus groups with college students indicate students prefer that programming acknowledge the reasons students use alcohol and other drugs and oppose content that could be interpreted as fear-mongering (Andraka-Christou et al., 2019). Increasing the visibility of substance use services may also be important, as many college students reporting heavy or frequent substance use are unaware of the services available to them (Pasman, Agius, et al., 2023). Visible and well-resourced collegiate recovery programs may help close the SUD treatment gap among college students, and may serve students interested in both abstinent and non-abstinent recovery pathways (Association of Recovery in Higher Education., 2024). Finally, it is important that mainstream health care providers assess college students for SUDs and intervene when indicated, as the current study found treatment in physical and mental health care settings was significantly less prevalent among college students with SUD relative to their non-student counterparts. Further research is needed to investigate college students’ reasons for not receiving treatment and identify strategies for engaging college students in substance use services.

Certain limitations should be noted. First, the study was based on a nationwide probability sample and weighted to be nationally representative of the overall US population; thus, the subpopulation of respondents who were in college at the time of the survey may not have been truly representative of college students across the nation as weights were based on the general population. We excluded Indigenous Peoples due to low representation in the analytic sample. Further, the small number of students who received treatment—while markedly concerning in itself—limited our ability to make inferences related to socio-demographic characteristics and substance use patterns that predict treatment receipt. Changes to the NSDUH during COVID limit the ability to combine the 2021 data with previous waves. Further, the 2022 NSDUH includes an updated measure of treatment receipt which cannot be compared to the 2021 treatment data. Future research should examine this updated measure and combine NSDUH cohorts to ensure the statistical power necessary to examine smaller racial/ethnic groups (e.g., American Indian/Native American) and conduct multivariable analyses predicting treatment utilization. Finally, this study was constrained by NSDUH measures, and further work is needed to examine the influence of other student- and college-level factors (e.g., two- or four-year institution, fraternity/sorority participation) on past-year SUD and treatment utilization.

Still, within the context of the shifting substance use landscape on college campuses (Firkey et al., 2022, McCabe et al., 2021), findings from this nationally representative study provide needed information about the SUD treatment gap among US college students and point to subpopulations of college students who could benefit from targeted outreach and intervention. Future research should examine college students’ reasoning for not seeking and/or receiving treatment, including perceived need for treatment and access barriers. Qualitative methods would be ideal for deeply exploring college students’ perceptions of treatment need, treatment-seeking experiences, and preferences for treatment provision. This line of research is needed to reduce the health and social consequences of SUDs on college campuses.

Role of funding source

This study was partially supported by research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (10.13039/100000026 NIDA ) and the National Institutes of Health (10.13039/100000002 NIH ); R01DA031160 and R01DA043691 . NIDA and NIH had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA, NIH, or the United States Government.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Emily Pasman: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization. Lisa Blair: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation. Marvin Solberg: Writing – original draft. Sean McCabe: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. Ty Schepis: Writing – review & editing, Methodology. Stella Resko: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization.

Declaration of Competing Interest

No conflict declared.

Appendix A Supplementary material

Supplementary material.

Appendix A Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.dadr.2024.100279.
==== Refs
References

American College Health Association. (2023). American College Health Association National College Health Assessment: Spring 2023 reference group data report. 〈https://www.acha.org/NCHA/ACHA-NCHA_Data/Publications_and_Reports/NCHA/Data/Reports_ACHA-NCHAIII.aspx〉
Andraka-Christou B. Alex B. Lyneé Madeira J. College Student Preferences for Substance Use Disorder Educational Videos: A Qualitative Study Subst. Use Misuse 54 8 2019 1400 1407 10.1080/10826084.2019.1581816 30860935
Arterberry B.J. Boyd C.J. West B.T. Schepis T.S. McCabe S.E. DSM-5 substance use disorders among college-age young adults in the United States: Prevalence, remission and treatment J. Am. Coll. Health 68 6 2020 650 657 10.1080/07448481.2019.1590368 30946626
Ashford R.D. Brown A.M. Eisenhart E. Thompson-Heller A. Curtis B. What we know about students in recovery: meta-synthesis of collegiate recovery programs, 2000-2017 Addict. Res. Theory 26 5 2018 405 413 10.1080/16066359.2018.1425399
Association of Recovery in Higher Education. (2024). Standards & Recommendations. 〈https://collegiaterecovery.org/standards-recommendations/〉
Bohler, R.M. (2023). Perceived need and unmet treatment need among adults with alcohol and drug use disorders in the united states: Examining the treatment gap to inform a more robust continuum of care [Ph.D., Brandeis University, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management]. 〈https://www.proquest.com/docview/2844574625/abstract/B396A97E56924C31PQ/1〉
Boness C.L. Votaw V.R. Schwebel F.J. Moniz-Lewis D.I.K. McHugh R.K. Witkiewitz K. An evaluation of cognitive behavioral therapy for substance use disorders: a systematic review and application of the society of clinical psychology criteria for empirically supported treatments Clin. Psychol.: Sci. Pract. 30 2 2023 129 142 10.1037/cps0000131
Caldeira K.M. Kasperski S.J. Sharma E. Vincent K.B. O’Grady K.E. Wish E.D. Arria A.M. College students rarely seek help despite serious substance use problems J. Subst. Abus. Treat. 37 4 2009 368 378 10.1016/j.jsat.2009.04.005
Carney T. Myers B. Effectiveness of early interventions for substance-using adolescents: Findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis Subst. Abus. Treat., Prev., Policy 7 1 2012 25 10.1186/1747-597X-7-25
Cox M.J. DiBello A.M. Meisel M.K. Ott M.Q. Kenney S.R. Clark M.A. Barnett N.P. Do misperceptions of peer drinking influence personal drinking behavior? Results from a complete social network of first-year college students Psychol. Addict. Behav. 33 3 2019 297 303 10.1037/adb0000455 30869918
Davis D.R. Kurti A.N. Skelly J.M. Redner R. White T.J. Higgins S.T. A review of the literature on contingency management in the treatment of substance use disorders, 2009–2014 Prev. Med. 92 2016 36 46 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.008 27514250
Dempsey R.C. McAlaney J. Helmer S.M. Pischke C.R. Akvardar Y. Bewick B.M. Fawkner H.J. Guillen-Grima F. Stock C. Vriesacker B. Van Hal G. Salonna F. Kalina O. Orosova O. Mikolajczyk R.T. Normative perceptions of cannabis use among european university students: Associations of perceived peer use and peer attitudes with personal use and attitudes J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 77 5 2016 740 748 10.15288/jsad.2016.77.740 27588532
Firkey M.K. Sheinfil A.Z. Woolf-King S.E. Substance use, sexual behavior, and general well-being of U.S. college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a brief report J. Am. Coll. Health 70 8 2022 2270 2275 10.1080/07448481.2020.1869750 33577419
Hai A.H. Carey K.B. Vaughn M.G. Lee C.S. Franklin C. Salas-Wright C.P. Simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use among college students in the United States, 2006–2019 Addict. Behav. Rep. 16 2022 100452 10.1016/j.abrep.2022.100452
Hamilton C.M. Strader L.C. Pratt J.G. Maiese D. Hendershot T. Kwok R.K. Hammond J.A. Huggins W. Jackman D. Pan H. Nettles D.S. Beaty T.H. Farrer L.A. Kraft P. Marazita M.L. Ordovas J.M. Pato C.N. Spitz M.R. Wagener D. …Haines J. The PhenX Toolkit: get the most from your measures Am. J. Epidemiol. 174 3 2011 253 260 10.1093/aje/kwr193 21749974
Hembroff L.A. Martell D. Allen R. Poole A. Clark K. Smith S.W. The long-term effectiveness of a social norming campaign to reduce high-risk drinking: The Michigan State University experience, 2000–2014 J. Am. Coll. Health 69 3 2021 315 325 10.1080/07448481.2019.1674856 31662121
Hennessy E.A. Tanner-Smith E.E. Mavridis D. Grant S.P. Comparative effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions for college students: Results from a network meta-analysis Prev. Sci. 20 5 2019 715 740 10.1007/s11121-018-0960-z 30604290
Hennessy E.A. Tanner-Smith E.E. Nichols L.M. Brown T.B. Mcculloch B.J. A multi-site study of emerging adults in collegiate recovery programs at public institutions Soc. Sci. Med. 278 2021 113955 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113955
Hingson R. Zha W. Smyth D. Magnitude and trends in heavy episodic drinking, alcohol-impaired driving, and alcohol-related mortality and overdose hospitalizations among emerging adults of college ages 18-24 in the united states, 1998-2014 J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 78 4 2017 540 548 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.540 28728636
Kelly J. Humphreys K. Ferri M. Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs for alcohol use disorder Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 3 2020 10.1002/14651858.CD012880.pub2
Kessler R.C. Andrews G. Colpe L.J. Hiripi E. Mroczek D.K. Normand S.-L.T. Walters E.E. Zaslavsky A.M. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress Psychol. Med. 32 6 2002 959 976 10.1017/S0033291702006074 12214795
Klein H. Washington T.A. The “triple whammy”: Serious psychological distress, suicidal ideation, and substance misuse among transgender persons Acta Psychol. 241 2023 104092 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104092
Krawczyk N. Rivera B.D. Jent V. Keyes K.M. Jones C.M. Cerdá M. Has the treatment gap for opioid use disorder narrowed in the U.S.?: a yearly assessment from 2010 to 2019 Int. J. Drug Policy 2022 103786 10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103786
Lee M.R. Sher K.J. Maturing out” of binge and problem drinking. Alcohol Res.: Curr. Rev. 39 1 2018 31 43
Lipari, R.N., Park-Lee, E., & Van Horn, S. (2017). America’s need for and receipt of substance use treatment in 2015. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 〈https://europepmc.org/article/NBK/nbk409172〉
Mark K. Saini J. Qato D.M. Serious psychological distress and cannabis use among pregnant women in the United States: Findings from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 2015–2018 Drug Alcohol Depend. 229 2021 109116 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109116
Mattern J.L. Neighbors C. Social norms campaigns: Examining the relationship between changes in perceived norms and changes in drinking levels J. Stud. Alcohol 65 4 2004 489 493 10.15288/jsa.2004.65.489 15376823
McAlaney J. Dempsey R.C. Helmer S.M. Van Hal G. Bewick B.M. Akvardar Y. Guillén-Grima F. Orosová O. Kalina O. Stock C. Zeeb H. Negative consequences of substance use in European university students: Results from Project SNIPE Eur. Addict. Res. 27 1 2020 75 82 10.1159/000507438 32375145
McCabe S.E. Arterberry B.J. Dickinson K. Evans-Polce R.J. Ford J.A. Ryan J.E. Schepis T.S. Assessment of changes in alcohol and marijuana abstinence, co-use, and use disorders among US young adults from 2002 to 2018 JAMA Pediatr. 175 1 2021 64 72 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3352 33044552
McCabe S.E. Schulenberg J.E. Schepis T.S. McCabe V.V. Veliz P.T. Longitudinal Analysis of Substance Use Disorder Symptom Severity at Age 18 Years and Substance Use Disorder in Adulthood JAMA Netw. Open 5 4 2022 e225324 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.5324
McCabe S.E. Wilens T.E. Boyd C.J. Chua K.-P. Voepel-Lewis T. Schepis T.S. Age-specific risk of substance use disorders associated with controlled medication use and misuse subtypes in the United States Addict. Behav. 90 2019 285 293 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.11.010 30472537
McCollister K. Yang X. Sayed B. French M.T. Leff J.A. Schackman B.R. Monetary conversion factors for economic evaluations of substance use disorders J. Subst. Abus. Treat. 81 2017 25 34 10.1016/j.jsat.2017.07.008
McHugh R.K. Votaw V.R. Sugarman D.E. Greenfield S.F. Sex and gender differences in substance use disorders Clin. Psychol. Rev. 66 2018 12 23 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.012 29174306
Mekonen T. Chan G.C.K. Connor J. Hall W. Hides L. Leung J. Treatment rates for alcohol use disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis Addiction 116 10 2021 2617 2634 10.1111/add.15357 33245581
Palmer R.S. McMahon T.J. Moreggi D.I. Rounsaville B.J. Ball S.A. College student drug use: Patterns, concerns, consequences, and interest in intervention 10.1353/csd.2012.0014 J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 53 1 2012 10.1353/csd.2012.0014
Pasman E. Agius E. O’Shay S. Broman M. Lee G. Resko S.M. Are campus services reaching those in need? Substance use and awareness of university counseling services J. Coll. Stud. Psychother. 2023 1 20 10.1080/87568225.2023.2208761
Pasman E. Clift J. Broman M. Madden E.F. Agius E. Resko S.M. It depends on what you consider recovery”: Perceptions of client cannabis use among peer recovery coaches 002204262311764 J. Drug Issues 2023 10.1177/00220426231176446
Pasman, E., Gannon, K., Broman, M., Cox, E., Brown, S., Patterson, D., Agius, E., & Resko, S.M. (2024). “I just thought it was for other people, not like me”: Barriers and facilitators to higher education access among people in recovery [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Patrick M.E. Miech R.A. Johnston L.D. O’Malley P.M. Monitoring the Future Panel Study annual report: National data on substance use among adults ages 19 to 60, 1976-2022 (Monit. Future Monogr. Ser. ). Univ. Mich. 2023 10.7826/ISR-UM.06.585140.002.07.0002.2023
Peltier M.R. Roberts W. Verplaetse T.L. Burke C. Zakiniaeiz Y. Moore K. McKee S.A. Licit and illicit drug use across trimesters in pregnant women endorsing past-year substance use: Results from National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2009–2019) Arch. Women’S. Ment. Health 25 4 2022 819 827 10.1007/s00737-022-01244-6 35737132
Pischke C.R. Helmer S.M. Pohlabeln H. Muellmann S. Schneider S. Reintjes R. Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A. Girbig M. Krämer A. Icks A. Walter U. Zeeb H. Effects of a Brief Web-Based “Social Norms”-Intervention on Alcohol, Tobacco and Cannabis Use Among German University Students: Results of a Cluster-Controlled Trial Conducted at Eight Universities Front. Public Health 9 2021 10.3389/fpubh.2021.659875
Sahker E. Pro G. Poudyal H. Furukawa T.A. Evaluating the substance use disorder treatment gap in the United States, 2016−2019: A population health observational study Am. J. Addict. 2023 10.1111/ajad.13465
Sahker E. Pro G. Poudyal H. Furukawa T.A. Evaluating the substance use disorder treatment gap in the United States, 2016−2019: A population health observational study Am. J. Addict. 33 1 2024 36 47 10.1111/ajad.13465 37583093
Saloner B. Krawczyk N. Solomon K. Allen S.T. Morris M. Haney K. Sherman S.G. Experiences with substance use disorder treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from a multistate survey Int. J. Drug Policy 101 2022 103537 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103537
Sanchez-Roige S. Kember R.L. Agrawal A. Substance use and common contributors to morbidity: A genetics perspective eBioMedicine 83 2022 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104212
Seigers D.K.L. Carey K.B. Screening and Brief Interventions for Alcohol Use in College Health Centers: A Review J. Am. Coll. Health 59 3 2010 151 158 10.1080/07448481.2010.502199 21186444
Smith D.C. Reinhart C.A. Begum S. Kosgolla J. Kelly J.F. Bergman B.B. Basic M. Coming of age in recovery: The prevalence and correlates of substance use recovery status among adolescents and emerging adults PLOS ONE 18 12 2023 e0295330 10.1371/journal.pone.0295330
Sterling S. Chi F. Hinman A. Integrating care for people with co-occurring alcohol and other drug, medical, and mental health conditions Alcohol Res. Health 33 4 2011 338 349 23580018
Stockings E. Hall W.D. Lynskey M. Morley K.I. Reavley N. Strang J. Patton G. Degenhardt L. Prevention, early intervention, harm reduction, and treatment of substance use in young people Lancet Psychiatry 3 3 2016 280 296 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00002-X 26905481
Subbaraman M.S. Witbrodt J. Differences between abstinent and non-abstinent individuals in recovery from alcohol use disorders Addict. Behav. 39 12 2014 1730 1735 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.07.010 25117850
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2022). NSDUH 2021 methodological resource book. 〈https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/nsduh-2021-methodological-resource-book-mrb〉
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2023). Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (PEP22-07-01–005; NSDUH Series H-57). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 〈https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2021-nsduh-annual-national-report〉
Terrion J.L. The experience of post-secondary education for students in recovery from addiction to drugs or alcohol: Relationships and recovery capital J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 30 1 2013 3 23 10.1177/0265407512448276
Verplaetse T.L. Peltier M.R. Roberts W. Pittman B. McKee S.A. Gender and past year serious psychological distress are associated with past year AUD: Time-varying results from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH; 2008–2017) Addict. Behav. 116 2021 106815 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106815
Wakeman S.E. Larochelle M.R. Ameli O. Chaisson C.E. McPheeters J.T. Crown W.H. Azocar F. Sanghavi D.M. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder JAMA Netw. Open 3 2 2020 e1920622 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622
Watkins L.E. Sprang K. An Overview of Internet- and Smartphone-Delivered Interventions for Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders Focus 16 4 2018 376 383 10.1176/appi.focus.20180016 31975929
Weinberger A.H. Pacek L.R. Sheffer C.E. Budney A.J. Lee J. Goodwin R.D. Serious psychological distress and daily cannabis use, 2008 to 2016: Potential implications for mental health? Drug Alcohol Depend. 197 2019 134 140 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.010 30825793
Weiss R.D. Griffin M.L. Jaffee W.B. Bender R.E. Graff F.S. Gallop R.J. Fitzmaurice G.M. A “community-friendly” version of integrated group therapy for patients with bipolar disorder and substance dependence: A randomized controlled trial Drug Alcohol Depend. 104 3 2009 212 219 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.04.018 19573999
Weiss R.D. Griffin M.L. Kolodziej M.E. Greenfield S.F. Najavits L.M. Daley D.C. Doreau H.R. Hennen J.A. A randomized trial of integrated group therapy versus group drug counseling for patients with bipolar disorder and substance dependence Am. J. Psychiatry 164 1 2007 100 107 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.1.100 17202550
Welsh J.W. Shentu Y. Sarvey D.B. Substance use among college students FOCUS 17 2 2019 117 127 10.1176/appi.focus.20180037 31975967
Willis E. Adams R. Keene J. If everyone is doing it, it must be safe: College students’ development of attitudes toward poly-substance use Subst. Use Misuse 54 11 2019 1886 1893 10.1080/10826084.2019.1618334 31142176
