Skip to main content

Table 3 Students’ sociodemographic and academic characteristics independently associated with six alcohol consumption indicators in the United Kingdom (Academic year 2007–2008)

From: Socio-demographic correlates of six indicators of alcohol consumption: survey findings of students across seven universities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

 

A. Long duration of drinkinga

B. Large amount of drinkingb

C. High frequency of drinking

D. Heavy episodic drinking

E. Problem drinking

F. Possible alcohol dependence

 

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

Gender

      

  Female

.52 (.42–.64)***

.41 (.32–.52)***

.42 (.35–.56)***

.49 (.37–.66)***

.59 (.46–.75)***

.41 (.29–.57)***

  Male

1

1

1

1

1

1

University

      

  Chester

1.39 (1.04–1.85)*

1.42 (1.07–1.88)*

.78 (.59–1.03)

1.03 (.75–1.40)

.67 (.48–.94)*

.51 (.31–.82)**

  Gloucestershire

1.15 (.87–1.52)

1.61 (1.22–2.13)***

1.36 (1.04–1.79)*

1.36 (1.00–1.86)*

.66 (.48–.90)**

.57 (.37–.88)*

  Ulster

.84 (.60–1.18)

1.15 (.83–1.59)

.54 (.39–.76)***

1.13 (.79–1.61)

1.14 (.79–1.65)

1.00 (.60–1.67)

  Swansea

1.56 (1.13–2.16)**

1.35 (.98–1.87)

.77 (.56–1.06)

.95 (.67–1.33)

.46 (.31–.70)***

.33 (.17–.64)***

  Plymouth

.86 (.56–1.32)

.77 (.50–1.17)

.66 (.43–1.00)

.68 (.44–1.05)

.83 (.45–1.51)

.58 (.23–1.44)

  Oxford Brookes

.69 (.42–1.13)

.60 (.37–.97)*

.79 (.51–1.22)

.47 (.29–.74)***

.67 (.39–1.13)

.67 (.32–1.40)

  Bath Spa

1

1

1

1

1

1

Year of study

      

  1st year

1.33 (.89–2.00)

1.63 (1.09–2.45)*

.99 (.67–1.47)

1.22 (.79–1.87)

.93 (.58–1.49)

.66 (.35–1.23)

  2nd year

1.57 (1.04–2.36)*

1.71 (1.13–2.57)**

.85 (.57–1.26)

1.28 (.83–1.97)

1.05 (.66–1.69)

.72 (.39–1.34)

  3rd year

1.18 (.76–1.82)

1.41 (.92–2.18)

.74 (.48–1.12)

.94 (.59–1.49)

1.01 (.61–1.68)

.55 (.27–1.09)

  ≥ 4th year

1

1

1

1

1

1

Have intimate partner

      

  Yes

.93 (.79–1.11)

.99 (.83–1.18)

.76 (.64–.89)***

.84 (.69–1.02)

.74 (.61–.91)**

.70 (.52–.94)*

  No

1

1

1

1

1

1

Accomodation during semester

      

  With parents

1.21 (.99–1.46)

.68 (.44–1.05)

.43 (.29–.65)***

.39 (.24–.62)***

.67 (.52–.85)***

.83 (.59–1.18)

  Other accomodation

1

1

1

1

1

1

Parental education

      

  Both parents high

.85 (.59–1.21)

.87 (.60–1.25)

1.01 (.69–1.45)

1.05 (.69–1.57)

.77 (.51–1.18)

.89 (.48–1.65)

  Mother high, father low

.79 (.49–1.29)

.82 (.51–1.33)

1.16 (.71–1.89)

1.04 (.61–1.77)

1.20 (.70–2.06)

1.89 (.89–3.99)

  Father high, mother low

.76 (.48–1.19)

.84 (.54–1.33)

1.23 (.78–1.94)

1.24 (.75–2.07)

.87 (.51–1.46)

1.18 (.55–2.51)

  Both parents low

1

1

1

1

1

1

Perceived income sufficiency

      

  Always sufficient

.77 (.65–.92)**

.68 (.57–.81)***

.78 (.66–.93)**

.67 (.56–.82)***

.76 (.62–.94)*

.73 (.53–.99)*

  Other

1

1

1

1

1

1

Important to achieve good grades

      

  Higher importance

.95 (.79–1.14)

.96 (.79–1.15)

.76 (.64–.91)**

.87 (.71–1.06)

.98 (.79–1.21)

.88 (.65–1.19)

  Other

1

1

1

1

1

1

Academic performance compared to peers

      

  Same/better performance

.92 (.74–1.15)

.92 (.74–1.15)

.86 (.69–1.08)

1.03 (.81–1.32)

.74 (.57–.95)*

.68 (.48–.97)*

  Lower performance

1

1

1

1

1

1

Gender differences

      

  Living with parents*Female

-

1.78 (1.10–2.89)*

2.13 (1.27–3.56)**

-

-

  1. Findings from logistic regression models predicting the type of drinking, adjusted for all variables in the table; OR – odds ratio; aLong duration (length of time) of last (most recent) drinking occasion; bLarge amount (number of drinks) of alcohol consumed during the last (most recent) drinking occasion; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.