Individual, Social, and Environmental Factors Associated with Different Patterns of Stimulant Use: A Cross-Sectional Study from Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION

Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATSs) are the second most commonly consumed class of illicit drugs globally, but there is limited understanding of the precise factors associated with problematic versus controlled ATS consumption. This exploratory study aimed to identify which individual, social, and environmental factors are associated with different patterns of ATS use over time.

METHODS

Cross-sectional surveys were conducted in Germany, England, The Netherlands, Poland, and the Czech Republic via face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews to collect data on different user groups. 1,458 adults (18+) reported exposure to but no ATS use (n = 339); former rare/moderate ATS use (n = 242); current rare/moderate ATS use (n = 273); former frequent/dependent ATS use (n = 201); current frequent/dependent ATS use (n = 403). Extent of ATS/other substance use was assessed by number of consumption days (lifetime, past year, past month) and Severity of Dependence Scale. To identify factors associated with group membership, data were also collected on previous injecting drug use (IDU) and consumption setting/rules. Psychological distress was measured using the Brief Symptom Inventory, with additional data collected on self-reported adverse life events and physical/mental health.

RESULTS

Currently, using frequent/dependent ATS users experienced more frequent unstable living conditions (27.5%) and psychological distress (59.8%) compared to other groups. A multinomial logistic regression showed that currently abstinent rare/moderate users were more likely to abstain from methamphetamine use {odds ratio (OR) = 2.48 (confidence interval [CI] = 1.32-4.68)} and from IDU (OR = 6.33 [CI = 2.21-18.14]), to avoid ATS use during working hours (OR = 6.67 [CI = 3.85-11.11]), and not to use ATS for coping reasons (OR = 4.55 [CI = 2.50-6.67]) compared to the reference group of currently using frequent/dependent users.

CONCLUSIONS

People who use ATS frequently and/or at dependent levels are more likely to have experienced social and economic adversity compared to infrequent ATS users. On the other hand, there is a substantial share of users, which show a controlled use pattern and are able to integrate ATS use into their lives without severe consequences.