MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1943384793 · doi:10.1024/0939-5911.a000380

The Swiss Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors – Findings of two Waves

2015· article· en· W1943384793 on OpenAlexaff
Gerhard Gmel, Christina Akré, Mariana Astudillo, Caroline Bähler, Stéphanie Baggio, Nicolas Bertholet, Carole Clair, Jacques Cornuz, Jean‐Bernard Daeppen, Stéphane Deline, Petra Dermota, Michelle Dey, Marc Dupuis, Natalia Estévez, Simon Foster, Jacques Gaume, Severin Haug, Yves Henchoz, Hervé Kuendig, Meichun Mohler‐Kuo, Alexandra N’Goran, Michael P Schaub, Joseph Studer, Joan-Carles Surı́s, Jen Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueSUCHT - Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis / Journal of Addiction Research and Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPeer pressureEcstasyCannabisMedicinePsychiatryProtective factorCohortYoung adultSubstance abuseCohort studyPoison controlEnvironmental healthPsychologyGerontologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Aim: To summarize published findings in peer-reviewed journals of the first two waves of the Swiss Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors (C-SURF), a longitudinal study assessing risk and protective factors of 5,987 young men during the phase of emerging adulthood (20 years at baseline, followed-up 15 months later). Methods: Included were 33 studies published until November 2014 focusing on substance use. Results: Substance use in early adulthood is a prevalent and stable behavior. The 12-month prevalence of nonmedical use of prescription drugs (10.6 %) lies between that of cannabis (36.4 %) and other illicit drugs such as ecstasy (3.7 %) and cocaine (3.2 %). Although peer pressure in the form of misconduct is associated with increased substance use, other aspects such as peer involvement in social activities may have beneficial effects. Regular sport activities are associated with reduced substance use, with the exception of alcohol use. Young men are susceptible to structural conditions such as the price of alcohol beverages or the density of on-premise alcohol outlets. Particularly alcohol use in public settings such as bars, discos or in parks (compared with private settings such as the home) is associated with alcohol-related harm, including injuries or violence. Being a single parent versus nuclear family has no effect on alcohol use, but active parenting does. Besides parenting, religiousness is an important protective factor for both legal and illegal substance use. Merely informing young men about the risks of substance use may not be an effective preventive measure. At-risk users of licit and illicit substances are more health literate, e. g., for example, they seek out more information on the internet than non-at-risk-users or abstainers. Discussion: There are a number of risk and protective substance use factors, but their associations with substance use do not necessarily agree with those found outside Europe. In the United States, for example, heavy alcohol use in this age group commonly takes place in private settings, whereas in Switzerland it more often takes place in public settings. Other behaviors, such as the nonmedical use of prescription drugs, appear to be similar to those found overseas, which may show the need for targeted preventive actions. C-SURF findings point to the necessity of establishing European studies to identify factors for designing specific preventive actions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSUCHT - Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis / Journal of Addiction Research and PracticeSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207