UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS:
THE STUDENT LIFESTYLE SURVEY
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to acknowledge the support and assistance of NUI Galway students
and staff in carrying out this study. Matt Doran, Mary O'Riordan and Una
McDermott merit special mention of our appreciation. We would also like to
acknowledge the assistance and facilities provided by Student Services,
Management Information Systems and the School of Psychology. The NUI
Galway Student Projects Fund supported the study through a project grant.
The research was conducted independently and as the lead authors we take
responsibility for the opinions expressed in the report. Our co-authors assisted
us in designing the survey and data collection (Christopher Place), analysis of
the data set and drafting the findings (Eric Van Lente, John Dring, John
McCaffrey).
We hope the Student Lifestyle Survey report will provide useful information
on the experience of undergraduate students at NUI Galway. The health and
well-being of students are important concerns of the University community.
The information we provide could help further target the extensive skills,
resources and research expertise available on campus. In addition to
identifying priorities for supporting health, the survey findings are a baseline
for comparison in the future.
Dr Pdraig MacNeela, Lecturer, School of Psychology, and Cindy Dring, MA,
Health Promotion Officer, Student Services.
June 2012
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. INTRODUCTION
Student physical, mental, and social well-being is centrally important to the
university experience. The 2009-2014 Strategic Plan for the National
University of Ireland, Galway (NUI Galway) is committed to preparing
graduates for learning, life and work, in part through a holistic educational
experience and support services. The university environment ought to enable
personal and social development alongside the educational experience. The
Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) described student support services as
contributing to this process, "by providing professional services which support
the holistic development of the person, thereby enabling all students to
achieve their full academic and personal potential" (IUQB, 2006, p. 9).
Student welfare services are designed to support and encourage students to
make choices conducive to positive health and well-being. Lifestyle choices
can have a profound impact on students at university and subsequently.
Evidence is therefore required to identify priority issues for student support
services and the university community more generally. The Student Lifestyle
Survey was carried out to assess student health and well-being and as a
baseline to measure change over time. The findings can be used to inform
policies and strategies aimed at supporting students.
2.2. STUDENT WELL-BEING
The transition to third level is a critical period. In the course of attending
university, students form friendships, new living arrangements and social
patterns. This experience is one of the most positive and memorable stages in
life. However, going to college is also a time when adjustment difficulties and
harmful health-related behaviours can become established. Thus, university
life brings challenges such as managing lifestyle choices, the development of
self care skills and personal independence (Parker et al., 2002). Students
encounter and must adjust to new demands in social, academic and financial
domains. It is, therefore, important to engage with students in relation to
their health in order to support successful university experience, linked to
both academic performance and student retention (DeBerard et al., 2004;
Pascarella et al., 2007).
2.3. THE STUDENT LIFESTYLE SURVEY
The Student Lifestyle Survey (SLS) was carried out to explore the behaviours,
perceptions and experiences of a cross-section of NUI Galway undergraduate
students. The College Lifestyle and Attitudes National (CLAN) Survey was
used as a guide in planning the study (Hope et al., 2005). The CLAN survey
was carried out in 2002 with a sample of 3,259 full-time undergraduate
students. It established a profile of student lifestyle habits in respect of
general and mental health, diet, exercise, accidents and injuries, sexual
3
health, substance use and drinking patterns. This was the first survey of
health behaviours and attitudes among third level students in all Irish
universities and Institutes of Technology. Coping skills, work / study balance,
and alcohol-related harm were particular areas of concern identified in the
findings. The CLAN survey found that regular binge drinking was associated
with a cluster of risky or harmful behaviours, such as cannabis use and
cigarette smoking and other negative consequences such as money problems,
academic difficulties, fights and unprotected sex (Hope et al., 2005). The
definition of binge drinking used in the SLS is the same as that used in the
CLAN survey, namely, consuming eight or more standard drinks on one
drinking occasion. This equates to four pints of beer, a bottle of wine or seven
single measures of spirits (Hope et al., 2005).
Drawing on the CLAN survey, the SLS was designed to provide an updated
picture of health behaviours and attitudes among NUI Galway students. It
also extended the CLAN survey methodology, by including a wider range of
mental health questions and a section on student engagement.
2.4. RESEARCH AIM
The Student Lifestyle Survey was designed as a cross-sectional survey of NUI
Galway students on attitudes, health behaviours and academic engagement,
to address the following aims:
Provide an overview of lifestyle habits and attitudes among
undergraduate students.
Make a comparative analysis of responses to different survey topics
according to gender and year of study.
Provide baseline data on health behaviours, such as drinking patterns,
drug use, and smoking to inform initiatives that support student health
and well being.
2.5. SUPPORT AND FUNDING
Funding to carry out the Student Lifestyle Survey was provided by the
Student Project Fund at NUI Galway, following approval of the project
proposal. A consultation group was formed to guide survey development,
comprising university staff from the Centre for Excellence in Learning and
Teaching, college advisory services, Student Services, the Students Union,
Counselling Services, and the Health Promotion Research Centre. The study
received approval from the Universitys Research Ethics Committee.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. DESIGN
Students responded to a self-administered survey that was hosted on an
online survey website. The sampling frame comprised all full-time
undergraduate students. Students were randomly sampled from a list
provided through university databases, using a stratified sampling procedure
to elicit proportional representation from NUI Galway colleges and by year of
course. Students were contacted to take part by sending an invitation to their
university email address. A prize draw was provided as an incentive to
complete the questionnaire.
A response rate of approximately 30% was anticipated. Given the intention to
conduct statistical analysis of sub-groups, a target sample size of 1,202 was
calculated. Therefore an invitation was sent to 3,500 students using a
sampling frame provided through university information services. The delivery
of 37 emails failed, and 986 students responded, giving a response rate of
28%. Analysis of responses by item indicated non-completion of some survey
items, especially toward the end of the survey. A final sample of 841 students
was retained following appraisal of missing data, and is the sample used in
presenting the findings.
3.2. SUMMARY OF STUDENT LIFESTYLE SURVEY CONTENT
The survey form was divided into seven topics (Appendix 1). Validated
measures were included along with items from international, national and
college surveys. We drew on the CLAN survey questionnaire for items and
reviewed surveys such as SLN, HBSC, ESPAD, the Trinity College study on
sexual health, the Higher Education Authority European Student Survey and
the international ECAS study on drinking patterns.
The SLS comprised the following sections:
1. Welcome. Introduction to the purpose of the research, study
information and contact details for the researchers.
2. About you. Demographic items adapted from the CLAN survey.
3. General health, food habits and tobacco use. One-item measure
of physical health (CLAN); tobacco use indicators from the 2007 SLAN
survey (Morgan et al., 2008); items on fruit and vegetable intake
based on current HSE healthy eating guidelines; items on sleep
adapted from the Sleep Heart Health Study Questionnaire (Quan et al.,
1997).
4. Alcohol use. CLAN items on drinking frequency, consumption of
specific drinks, frequency of binge drinking (four pints of peer, a bottle
of wine, seven single measure of spirits, six premixed spirits), harmful
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
3.3. PROCEDURE
The survey content was developed in consultation with the project steering
committee. We recruited university staff and student representatives to this
group to draw on specialised knowledge of the student experience. This
collaborative approach assisted in item design and selection of standardised
measures. The SLS was presented online. We designed a survey form hosted
on a survey website, and piloted it with 20 students. The final form was
completed following feedback on layout, question formulation and overall
design. Completion of the survey required approximately 35 minutes. The
steering committee approved the final version of the survey. Data collection
took place during in spring 2009, avoiding exam periods and holidays.
An invitation email with introductory information on the survey was sent to
randomly selected undergraduate students. A link to the survey webpage was
provided in the email. A reminder was sent after 10 days and again three
weeks following the initial mass email. We were permitted to make
announcements before class and used posters and flyers to raise awareness
of the survey on the campus.
On clicking the email link, the respondent was taken to the survey welcome
page, giving information on the SLS and contact information for the
researchers. Students were informed that by clicking to go to the next page
the survey would begin, and that they could discontinue at any time. The
participants were given the option to email a named researcher to enter the
draw. This method ensured we did not link the person to individual survey
responses. The data were downloaded and organised into a data set using
the SPSS 18 package for statistical analysis. Descriptive information was
reviewed during data cleaning and decisions made about missing entries in
the survey, resulting in a final sample of 841 participants. A targeted
statistical analysis of the data followed an initial analysis of trends, using
descriptive methods and inferential statistical tests. We used the chi-square
test, parametric correlations, t-test for independent samples and linear
regression inferential tests.
4. RESULTS
4.1. DEMOGRAPHICS
The NUI Galway Student Lifestyle Survey returned a sample of 841 full-time
undergraduate students. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of
the sample, across year of study, College, and accommodation type. The
students were mostly female and predominantly aged under 21 (females:
59%, males: 41%).
Males
N=341
%
40.5
Females
N=500
%
59.5
Total
N=841
%
80.1
11.1
8.8
79.0
13.4
7.6
79.4
12.5
8.1
32.4
38.7
28.9
34.5
38.9
26.6
33.7
38.8
27.5
22.8
19.3
25.5
6.5
25.8
38.9
17.2
4.3
18.6
21.1
32.4
18.1
12.9
13.6
23.0
2.6
34.6
62.8
1.4
42.9
55.7
1.9
39.5
58.6
3.5
24.4
17.1
52.1
2.9
3.6
18.9
22.1
52.0
3.4
3.6
21.2
20.0
52.0
3.2
95.0
5.0
93.9
6.1
94.4
5.6
4.2.1. Income
Family was the predominant source of income, with 75% of the students
receiving this support, followed by paid employment (42%). Over one quarter
(28%) received a local authority or State grant. Much smaller percentages of
students (6-7%) reported income from a fellowship or scholarship, social
welfare payments or bank loans. There were variations in the amount
typically received in each income category. Although a small proportion
received social welfare, the average amount of 620 per person in receipt of this
income was larger than the amount typically received from the family (382) or
employment (354). A broadly consistent pattern was reported across year of
Table 2: Sources of monthly incomea and mean income from each source in
Euro, by gender
Students with
this income
source (N, %)
630 (75%)
357 (42%)
238 (28%)
Malesb
Femalesb
Family
374
386
Employment
382
336
Local Authority/State
Grants
330
343
Fellowships/Scholarships
55 (7%)
457
299
Social Welfare
51 (6%)
659
589
Bank Loans
50 (6%)
256
298
a only for students with this source of income
b 5% trimmed mean for just those who have this source of income
Totalb
382
354
338
359
620
282
4.2.2. Expenditure
Those students not living at home reported accommodation as their largest
single expense. Seventy-two per cent reported expenditure on
accommodation, with males and females reporting paying similar amounts
(343). Some expenditure categories were nearly ubiquitous. Nearly all
reported expenditure on food (97%) and phone (92%). Among those who
reported a particular expenditure category, an average of 135 was spent on
food, compared with 89 for alcohol, 62 for transport, 62 for tobacco, and 51 on
regular bills such as electricity.
Femalesb
128
26
46
76
64
41
344
27
51
18
63
55
Totalb
135
26
41
89
62
43
343
25
51
20
62
46
Table 4: Mean number of hours allocated per week to academic and paid
work, by gender
Male
17.5
9.7
12.7
Classes/tutorials
Personal study (not exam time)
Paid employment (among those working)
Female Total
17.1
17.3
11.1
10.6
12.6
12.7
10
Female
Sports
3.7
Sports clubs
1.5
University societies
0.9
Volunteering
0.4
*Significant between gender (p<.05)
**Significant between gender (p<.01)
1.7
0.7
0.8
0.4
Total
2.5**
1.1**
0.9
0.4
% Reporting
this activity
46.4
24.4
25.4
13.3
Males
17.2
28.6
19.8
18.5
12.3
3.6
Females
14.6
26.4
23.8
16.6
16.6
2.2
Total
15.7
27.3
22.2
17.3
14.8
2.7
11
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Poor
Fair
Good
Very good
Excellent
Genral Health
Males
Females
12
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Poor
Fair
Good
Very good
Excellent
Females
13
Females
Exams
Subject-specific demands
Studies in general
65.4
50.5
54.0
78.6
67.2
64.6
73.2**
60.4**
60.3**
Financial situation
Family situation
Living situation
41.9
16.7
18.8
50.4
22.4
25.8
47.0**
20.1*
23.0
Relationships
21.7
Competition at college
16.7
Anonymity at college
15.8
Circle of friends
13.5
Illness
10.8
Sexuality
5.3
* 2, significant between gender (p<.05)
** 2, significant between gender (p<.01)
20.4
26.2
16.8
17.8
11.8
3.2
20.9
22.4**
16.4
16.0*
11.4
4.0
College Studies
Living Conditions
Total
Mean scores for the stress items ranged from 3.0 (SD: 0.8) out of 4.0, for the
item on exams, to 1.3 for the item on sexuality as a stressor (SD: 0.6). The
items related to university courses were reported as the most common
sources of stress, followed by living conditions, and personal or interpersonal
stressors. Gender differences in mean scores were particularly strong in
respect of college studies, finances and competition at college.
4.3.5. Physical and Mental Well-Being
Two multi-item measures of health and well-being are reported on here.
These are sub-scales of the SF-36 assessment tool. The SF-36 is used
extensively internationally and across population groups. The two scales are
the energy and vitality index (EVI) (Cronbachs : 0.82, 95% CI = 0.80-0.84)
and the mental health index (MHI-5) (Cronbachs : 0.84, 95% CI = 0.820.86).
Table 8 describes the SF-36 items individually, highlighting scores on the sixpoint scale by gender. Mean scores have been reversed where appropriate
(e.g., 'worn out') so that in all cases, higher scores indicate positive
responses. Females reported lower scores on physical well-being items for
energy and tiredness. Significant differences were noted on three of the five
mental health well-being items. Males reported higher levels of mood (i.e.,
less 'down') and a greater sense of calm. Scores on individual items can be
converted into a 0-100 score for each scale, with significant gender
differences noted in total scores as well as well as in individual item scores.
14
Table 8: SF-36 energy and vitality and mental health scores by gender
Energy and Vitality (EVI)
Males
Females
Total
Full of life
Energy
Worn outa
Tireda
4.1
3.9
4.1
3.7
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(1.2)
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.3
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
4.0
3.7
4.0
3.5
(1.1)
(1.2)**
(1.2)*
(1.2)**
Nervousa
Down in the dumpsa
Calm and peaceful
Downhearted and bluea
Happy
4.5
5.1
3.9
4.6
4.4
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.1)
4.4
4.8
3.6
4.4
4.3
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.1)
4.5
4.9
3.7
4.5
4.3
(1.3)
(1.2)**
(1.1)**
(1.8)**
(1.1)
Table 9: Mean SF-36 scores on the energy and vitality / mental health scales
for SLS and SLN national surveys, by gender
Males
Females
Total
59.3 (19)
70.1 (19)
53.6 (19)
65.7 (18)
55.9 (19)**
67.5 (18)**
72.6 (19)
82.0 (16)
68.3 (19)
80.3 (16)
71.0 (19)**
82.0 (16)**
SLS
Relatively low SF-36 scores have been noted in previous research with UK
student populations (Stewart-Brown et al., 2000). The 1,200 students
surveyed in Stewart-Brown et al.'s study of three UK higher education
institutions reported relatively low scores on the vitality and mental health SF36 sub-scales. The mean vitality score for these students was 53.0, compared
with the UK national population norm for 18-35 year olds of 61.6. The
equivalent mean mental health sub-scale score for UK students was 65.6,
15
compared with the 18-35 year old norm of 72.3. Female students reported
lower scores, similar to the pattern identified in the responses to the SLS.
This survey also asked about perceptions of the disability support. A high level
of satisfaction with disability support services (including assistive technology
services) was reported. However, the items on stressors and student
engagement indicate that NUI Galway students with a disability may perceive
more challenges to having a successful university experience, compared with
others.
16
Table 10: Illegal drug use in past 12 months, by gender and frequency of use
Males
Females
Cannabis
41.3
Ecstasy (E, XTC)
12.9
Cocaine (Coke, Crack)
8.9
Salvia, BZP
10.9
Magic Mushrooms (Mushies,
peyote)
8.4
Amphetamine (Speed, Whizz,
uppers)
4.5
LSD (Acid, Trips)
3.9
Tranquillisers/sedatives
2.1
Stimulants (Ritalin) without
prescription
2.4
Solvents (Gas, Glue)
1.2
Heroin (Smack, Skag)
0.6
a
vs. once or twice among users of the drug
*Significant between gender (p<.05)
**Significant between gender (p<.01)
Total
29.2
5.9
5.1
2.7
34.1**
8.7**
6.7
6.0**
% users
taking drug
3+ times in
past year
60.4
47.2
21.8
32.7
2.3
4.8**
12.8
3.1
1.2
2.1
3.7
2.3*
2.1
13.3
15.8
17.6
0.6
1.0
0.4
1.3
1.1
0.5
18.2
22.2
25.0
With the exception of cannabis, the frequency of drug use was usually
reported as once or twice in the past twelve months. By comparison, 60% of
cannabis users reported using it three or more times. Ecstasy was next most
frequently used drug, with nearly half of users (47%) in the past year
reporting using it three times or more. There were some gender differences
besides those already reported on cannabis use. Males were also more likely
to report using Ecstasy, Salvia / BZP, magic mushrooms, and LSD, although
the prevalence of use of these drugs was relatively low.
18
4.8. ALCOHOL
4.8.1. Drinking Habits: Frequency, Quantity and Beverage Type
About 73% of students had consumed alcohol during the last week and 91%
in the last month. Some 6% were non-drinkers, reporting that they never had
alcohol beyond sips and tastes (5%) or did not have a drink in the last twelve
months (<1%). Although non-Irish nationals were a relatively small
proportion of the participant group (5.6%), they represented 28% of the nondrinker group.
An average of 14 standard drinks were consumed per week, with males
reporting an average of 17 standard drinks and females an average of 12
standard drinks. One-third of men reported drinking more than the
recommended limit of 21 standard drinks per week, compared with 39% of
women drinking more than their recommended limit of 14 standard drinks.
The students were asked about their consumption of several types of drink,
allowing us to estimate the breakdown of drinking by beverage. The average
of 17 standard drinks consumed by males works out to 11 standard drinks in
beer / cider, one glass of wine, and five measures of spirits. The equivalent
figures for females are three standard drinks in beer / cider, three glasses of
wine, and six measures of spirits. Thus, spirits represent half of the alcohol
use reported by women compared with less than a third of the alcohol
reported by men.
Students were asked how often during the last 12 months they consumed (a)
beer/cider, (b) wine, and (c) spirits, from every day to never. Less than 4%
drank any specific drink 4-5 days a week or more. Beer/cider consumption
once a week was reported by 51%, compared with 25% for drinking wine,
and 51% for spirits. Men were nearly twice as likely to drink beer as women
(males: 69.4%; females: 35.5%) at least once a week. This was a significant
difference, complemented by the greater likelihood of females reporting
drinking wine at least once a week (males: 18.8%; females: 29.1%). There
was no gender difference in likelihood of drinking spirits at least once a week
(males: 46.8%; females: 53.8%).
Binge drinking is defined in this report as drinking at least 75 grams of pure
alcohol on a given occasion (i.e., at least four pints of beer or equivalent).
Just under fifty per-cent (49.9%) were categorised as high frequency or
regular binge drinkers, defined here as reporting binge drinking once a week
or more (Table 11).
19
Males
3.3
29.3
29.0
20.1
7.0
11.3
Females
1.4
15.6
25.2
32.8
12.0
13.0
Total
2.2
21.2
26.6
27.7
10.0
12.3
Taking just those students who drink, more than half (53%) reported binge
drinking at least once a week (Figure 3). Men (66%) were significantly more
likely than women (44%) to report regular binge drinking at this frequency.
30
Percentage
25
20
15
10
0
Never / Rarely
1 Month
2-3 Month
1 Week
2-3 Week
4+ Week
Females
20
Males
52.1
63.2
28.9
5.4
1.5 (1.1)
Females
52.5
57.8
27.4
1.7
1.4 (1.1)
Total
52.3
59.9
28.0
3.2**
1.4 (1.1)
Table 13: Percentage reporting experiencing harms or risks due to ones own
drinking, by gender
Males
Females
50.6
49.3
49.8
59.5
42.7
50.5
39.2
54.1**
40.6
58.5
17.4
16.1
58.9
9.3
12.0
58.8
12.5**
13.7
Money problems
Unintentional sex
Unprotected sex
22.5
15.2
11.4
17.9
12.0
8.2
19.7
13.3
9.5
34.8
34.5
30.1
26.9
32.0
30.0*
19.0
14.6
4.0 (3.0)
9.3
12.2
3.4 (2.8)
Academic performance
Acute harms
Personal harms
Chronic harms
Social harms
Harmed friendships
Harmed relationship / home-life
Mean number of harms (SD)
*Significant between gender (p<.05)
**Significant between gender (p<.01)
Total
13.1**
13.1
3.6 (2.9)**
The survey also included a set of items on harms and risks experienced as a
result of other people's drinking. Two-thirds of students who drank reported
experiencing at least one harm or risk because of someone else's drinking
21
(Table 14). The harm cited most often by both genders was verbal abuse
(males: 38%; females: 32%). Males were more likely to experience acute and
personal harms, whereas females reported arguments and relationship
problems more often.
Females
0.9
14.7
17.6
0.9
1.0
6.6
7.8
1.0
1.0
9.9**
11.8**
1.0
4.7
38.4
29.3
5.6
31.6
17.8
5.2
34.4*
22.5**
12.3
15.8
17.8
21.8
15.6*
19.4*
1.4 (1.4)
1.1 (1.3)
Acute harm
Personal Harm
Social Harm
Total
1.2 (1.4)**
22
Male
34.9 (6.3)
27.3 (5.7)
44.5 (7.7)
106.7 (16.9)
Female
34.8 (6.4)
27.7 (6.1)
44.7 (7.5)
107.2 (17.0)
Total
34.8 (6.4)
27.5 (5.9)
44.6 (7.8)
106.9 (16.9)
23
Male
49.7
76.2
75.6
12.5
84.7
66.2
65.8
Female
46.5
88.1
82.0
10.3
90.6
78.5
69.9
Total
47.7
83.2**
79.3
11.2
88.2
73.4**
68.2
Other three categories are very weakly/not at all Rather weakly and Somewhat/not sure
Male
69.9
63.5
33.4
54.0
57.1
Female
72.9
61.7
35.1
49.8
64.1
Total
71.7*
62.5
34.4
51.5
61.2*
Table 18: Percentage reporting awareness and use of student facilities and
services, by gender
Awareness / Use
Not aware of it
Know of it, but haven't
Already used it
Health centre
Not aware of it
Know of it, but haven't
Already used it
Health promotion Not aware of it
Know of it, but haven't
Already used it
Chaplaincy
Not aware of it
Know of it, but haven't
Already used it
Disability support Not aware of it
Know of it, but haven't
Already used it
Counselling
Not aware of it
Know of it, but haven't
Already used it
Careers advisory Not aware of it
Know of it, but haven't
Already used it
*Significant between gender (p<.05)
**Significant between gender (p<.01)
Sports centre
used it
used it
used it
used it
used it
used it
used it
25
Males
1.2
37.7
61.1
9.1
47.0
43.9
23.9
63.9
12.2
13.2
75.2
11.6
28.0
66.5
5.5
12.6
80.0
7.4
13.1
66.5
20.4
Females Total
2.3
1.9**
54.1 47.4**
43.6 50.7**
4.4
6.3**
38.9 42.2**
56.7 51.5**
19.1 21.0
68.3 66.5
12.6 12.4
13.3 13.2
75.4 75.3
11.3 11.5
25.8 26.7*
72.3 69.9*
1.9
3.4*
6.3
8.8**
83.6 82.2**
10.1 9.0**
9.5
10.9
65.1 65.7
25.4 23.4
26
Table 19: Mean number of hours allocated to academic and paid work per
week, by drinking pattern
Regular
binge
drinkers
Classes/tutorials
16.5
Personal study (not exam time)
8.4
Paid work (just those working)
13.2
*Significant between drinking pattern (p<.05)
**Significant between drinking pattern (p<.01)
Other
drinkers
Nondrinkers
Total
17.7
12.9
12.2
20.1
13.0
12.9
17.3**
10.6**
12.7
27
Nondrinkers
2.9
1.0
1.9
0.7
Total
2.5
1.0
0.9**
0.4
59% or less
60%+
Regular
binge
drinkers
46.6
53.4
Other
drinkers
Nondrinkers
39.1
60.9
31.6
68.4
28
Regular
binge
drinkers
61.2
74.1
37.2
5.0
1.8 (1.1)
Other
drinkers
41.9
43.6
17.5
1.1
1.0 (1.1)
Total
52.3**
60.0**
28.1**
3.2**
1.4 (1.1)**
29
Regular
binge
drinkers
70.6
69.9
61.5
52.9
43.1
34.4
27.5
20.3
18.4
17.9
17.5
15.6
13.2
4.6 (2.8)
Other
drinkers
45.4**
36.2**
36.6**
26.9**
19.4**
24.9**
10.5**
5.8**
6.1**
8.0**
8.3**
10.5*
5.5**
2.4 (2.5)**
Regular
binge
drinkers
40.2
28.5
20.8
15.1
15.3
14.6
6.0
1.0
1.0
1.4 (1.4)
Other
drinkers
29.1**
16.3**
18.8
7.8**
5.0**
17.7
4.7
0.8
1.1
1.0 (1.3)**
Table 26: Mean scores on SF-36 energy / vitality and mental health items, by
drinking pattern
Regular
binge
drinkers
Other
drinkers
Nondrinkers
Full of life
Energy
Worn out
Tired
4.1
3.8
4.0
3.5
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(1.2)
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.4
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
4.2
4.3
4.1
3.6
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
4.0
3.7
4.0
3.5
(1.1)*
(1.2)**
(1.2)
(1.2)
Nervous
Down in the dumps
Calm and peaceful
Downhearted and blue
Happy
4.6
5.0
3.8
4.5
4.4
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.1)
4.4
4.8
3.6
4.5
4.2
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.2)
4.4
4.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
(1.3)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(1.1)
4.5
4.9
3.7
4.5
4.3
(1.3)
(1.2)*
(1.1)**
(1.2)
(1.1)*
Total Scores
31
54.0 (20.0)
65.7 (18.5)
Total
Nondrinkers
Total
32.2 (6.7)
26.4 (5.7)
41.0 (9.5)
99.6 (19.6)
34.8 (6.4)**
27.5 (5.9)
44.6 (7.8)**
106.9 (16.9)**
32
Table 28: Mean scores on student engagement items and factors, by drinking
pattern
Regular
binge
drinkers
Focused on sports and social life 3.6 (1.0)
Hope to develop independence and 4.2 (0.9)
confidence
Need qualification for good job 4.2 (1.0)
Wonder why I ever came here 1.8 (1.1)
Other
drinkers
Nondrinkers
3.1 (1.1)
4.2 (0.9)
4.1 (1.0)
1.9 (1.1)
Total
4.4 (0.7)
4.1 (1.0)**
3.9 (1.0)**
12.3 (2.1)**
Table 29: Mean scores on 'NUI Galway emphasises' items, by drinking pattern
Regular
binge
drinkers
2.8 (0.8)
2.7 (0.9)
Other
drinkers
Nondrinkers
Total
2.9 (0.8)
2.7 (0.9)
2.1 (0.9)
2.4 (0.9)
2.7(0.9)
33
regular binge drinkers reported higher average alcohol consumption per week
(21.6 standard drinks), compared with an average of 14.1 drinks among other
males who drank. Female regular binge drinkers reported an average of 17
standard drinks per week, compared with 10.5 drinks on average among
other female drinkers.
5.2.1. Interactions between gender and binge drinker status
Table 30 presents some of the findings linked to binge drinking status and
gender. These help to tease apart the results reported earlier regarding
drinker status, mental health and vitality. Male regular binge drinkers spent
more on alcohol than their female equivalents. Well-being and mental health
differed with gender and alcohol use. Among males, vitality scores were
lowest among regular binge drinkers and highest among male non-drinkers.
Female vitality scores followed a different pattern. Women who were regular
binge drinkers and non-drinkers reported similar scores, with other drinkers
recording lower vitality scores. Different patterns were apparent in SF-36
mental health scores. Male mental health scores were consistent regardless of
drinking habits, while female scores were highest among regular binge
drinkers. Thus, the findings are more complex than simply stating that mental
health and vitality are higher among regular binge drinkers than other
drinkers.
Gender was also important in the association between regular binge drinking
and other risky behaviours. For example, male regular binge drinkers were
particularly likely to report using cannabis in the past year (55.7%). This is
higher than equivalent group of females who reported regular binge drinking
(37.7%), who were themselves more likely to report smoking cannabis than
females in the other drinker category (25.6%). Prevalence of reported use of
emergency contraception by oneself or a partner was far higher among
female students who were regular binge drinkers (40.3%). The prevalence of
reported emergency contraception use by male regular binge drinkers
(22.7%, in relation to their female partner), was comparable with the figure
reported by females in the other drinkers category (26.5%). On other factors,
such as smoking prevalence, weekly time allocations, and harms associated
with drinking, there was little evidence of interactions between gender and
binge drinking.
34
Table 30: Mean scores on selected indicators, by type of drinker and gender
Mean scores
Alcohol spend p/month (Euro)
Male
Female
SF-36 Vitality score (EVI)
Male
Female
SF-36 Mental health score (MHI-5) Male
Female
% Reporting particular behaviours
Cannabis use in past year
Male
Female
Smoker
Male
Female
Emergency contraception
Male
Female
Regular
binge
drinkers
Other
drinkers
Nondrinkers
138.0
95.2
57.9
56.0
70.0
68.0
49.9
48.9
61.3
50.8
69.8
64.2
0
0
64.4
57.5
71.0
63.7
55.7
37.7
31.7
32.4
22.7
40.3
20.0
25.6
17.7
13.9
10.1
26.5
0
4.3
4.0
0
10.5
0
35
Males
other
drinkers
Female
other
drinkers
3.2
Female
regular
binge
drinkers
6.0
4.3
2.8
11.5
14.4
8.9
16.4
19.5
19.1
14.6
13.5
14.4
58.7
60.8
64.4
69.6
67.2
73.4
28.0
5.9
5.2
9.0
8.8
6.5
16.9
15.3
17.8
16.8
17.2
17.0
56.5
55.5
56.1
67.8
66.8
69.7
34.8
4.7
4.2
11.7
15.4
12.2
17.8
17.5
17.0
11.3
9.6
11.0
51.0
49.1
52.3
64.8
63.8
64.0
27.2
20.0
14.3
40.1
38.0
22.6
28.4
4.8
36
37
38
39
41
42
44
7. REFERENCES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2009). Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire. Atlanta, GA: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Cherpital, C. J. (2000). A brief screening instrument for problem drinking in
the emergency room: The RAPS4. Journal of Studies in Alcohol, 61, 447449.
Dantzer, C., Wardle, J., Fuller, R., Pampalone, S. Z., & Steptoe, A. (2006).
International study of heavy drinking: Attitudes and sociodemographic
factors in university students. Journal of American College Health, 55, 8389.
DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. C. (2004). Predictors of
academic achievement and retention among college freshman: A
longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38, 66-81.
ETL-Project (2005). Shortened Experiences of Teaching and Learning
Questionnaire. Available from http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/SETLQ.pdf.
Gagn, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in
prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation & Emotion, 27, 199-223.
Gannon, N. (2010). Confidence, competence and commitment: An
46