Substance use preferences and sexually transmitted infections among Canadian post-secondary students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In Canada, substance use is one of the key predisposing factors that may lead to risky sexual behaviors among post-secondary students. There is considerable economic burden and significant public health concern posed by substance use and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of substance use preferences (alcohol, cannabis, and other drugs) and its association with STIs among Canadian post-secondary students. Materials and methods: This is a cross-sectional study using data from the National College Health Assessment II, Spring 2016 survey conducted by the American College Health Association. There were 31,642 sexually active participants, representing 41 post-secondary institutions in Canada. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression were conducted to estimate the effect of substance use preferences on STIs. Results: This study found that participants reported being current users of alcohol (80%), cannabis (23%), and other drugs (8%). Additionally, 3.96% of the participants self-reported being diagnosed or treated for an STI in the last 12 months. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed current cannabis use to be significantly associated with self-reported STIs (aOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12–1.6). There was a significant association between current drug use and STIs among male (aOR, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.27–4.06) and female participants (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.52–2.30). Having multiple sexual partners, a history of sexual assault, being homosexual, Black, and >21 years old were also found to have a significant association with self-reported STIs ( P -value <0.001). Conclusion: In this study, significant associations were found between cannabis and other drug use and STIs among post-secondary students in Canada. The results of this study can help inform institutions of higher learning and public health professionals in the design, implementation, and evaluation of substance use and STI policies and effective school-based health programming. Keywords: substance use, alcohol use, cannabis use, drug use, sexually transmitted infections, post-secondary students
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".