Search

Background: Cannabis use is increasing among middle-aged and older US adults, populations that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of cannabis. Risks for adverse effects differ by cannabis use patterns, which have become increasingly heterogeneous. Nevertheless, little is known about age differences in such patterns. Objective: To investigate age differences in cannabis use patterns, comparing younger (age 18–49), middle-aged (age 50–64), and older adults (age ≥65). Methods: A total of 4,151 US adults with past 7-day cannabis consumption completed an online survey (35.1% male; 60.1% female; 4.8% identified as "other"). Regression models examined age differences in cannabis use patterns. Results: Compared to younger adults, middle-aged and older adults were more likely to consume cannabis during evening hours (50–64: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.98, 95% CI 2.24–3.96; ≥65: aOR = 4.23, 95 CI 2.82–6.35); by only one method (50–64: aOR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.34–2.09; ≥65: aOR = 3.38, 95 CI 2.24–5.09); primarily by smoking as the only method (50–64: aOR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.29–1.78; ≥65: aOR = 2.12, 95 CI 1.64–2.74); but less likely to consume concentrated cannabis products (concentrates) with extremely high %THC (50–64: aOR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.54–0.93; ≥65: aOR = 0.30, 95 CI 0.16–0.55). Age differences in cannabis use patterns were also observed between middle-aged and older adults. Conclusion: Findings suggest that middle-aged and older adults may engage in less risky cannabis use patterns compared to younger groups (e.g. lower likelihood of consuming highly potent concentrates). However, findings also underscore the importance of recognizing risks unique to these older demographics, such as smoking-related health events. Consequently, prevention strategies targeting such use patterns are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Hallucinogen use is potentially harmful. Information on whether such use has increased in recent decades is lacking. This study assessed overall and age‐specific time trends in the prevalence of 12‐month hallucinogen use in the US general population. Design: Cross‐sectional. Setting: Data from the US National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002–19. Participants: Respondents aged ≥ 12 years (n = 1 006 051). Measurements Predictors were continuous years. Outcome variables included any hallucinogen use and use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ecstasy and phencyclidine (PCP) in the past year. Socio‐demographic variables (gender, age, race/ethnicity, educational level and family income) were covariates. Findings Overall, hallucinogen use increased between 2015 and 2019 [prevalence difference (PD) = +0.44, P < 0.05]. Since 2002, hallucinogen use has increased in adults aged ≥ 26 years (PD, 2002–14 = +0.24, P < 0.05; PD, 2015–19 = +0.45, P < 0.001) and decreased in adolescents aged 12–17 years (PD, 2002–14 = −1.60, P < 0.0001; PD, 2015–19 = −0.73, P < 0.001). Ecstasy use has decreased in adolescents (PD, 2002–14 = −0.56, P < 0.001), adults aged 18–25 years (PD, 2015–19 = −0.96, P < 0.01) and ≥ 26 years (PD, 2015–19 = −0.13, P < 0.05). LSD use between 2002 and 2019 increased overall (PD = +0.71, P < 0.0001) and in all age groups (12–17: PD = +0.67, P < 0.001; 18–25: PD = +3.12, P < 0.0001; ≥ 26: PD = +0.36, P < 0.0001). Conversely, PCP use between 2002 and 2019 decreased overall (PD = –0.06, P < 0.001), in adolescents (PD = –0.24, P < 0.001) and young adults (PD = –0.32, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Since 2002, hallucinogen use in the United States has decreased among adolescents but increased in adults and is now estimated to affect more than 3 million adults aged 26+ years and more than 5.5 million adults aged 18+ years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The authors sought to determine the association of cannabis indicators with self-reported psychotic disorders in the U.S. general population.Methods: Participants were from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; 2001-2002; N=43,093) and NESARC-III (2012-2013; N=36,309). Logistic regression was used to estimate standardized prevalences of past-year self-reported psychotic disorders within each survey and to evaluate the association of past-year self-reported psychotic disorders with indicators of nonmedical cannabis use (any use; frequent use [at least three times/week], daily/near-daily use, and DSM-IV cannabis use disorder) compared with those with no past-year nonmedical cannabis use. Whether the strength of associations differed between surveys was indicated by difference-in-difference tests (between-survey contrasts) and ratios of odds ratios between surveys.Results: Self-reported psychotic disorders were significantly more prevalent among participants with any nonmedical cannabis use than those without (2001-2002: 1.65% compared with 0.27%; 2012-2013: 1.89% compared with 0.68%). In 2001-2002, self-reported psychotic disorders were unrelated to either frequent use or daily/near-daily use. However, in 2012 - 2013, compared with nonusers, self-reported psychotic disorders were more common among participants with frequent use and those with daily/near-daily nonmedical cannabis use (2012-2013: 2.79% and 2.52%, respectively, compared with 0.68% among nonusers). Self-reported psychotic disorders were significantly more prevalent among participants with cannabis use disorder than nonusers in both surveys (2001-2002: 2.55% compared with 0.27%; 2012 - 2013: 3.38% compared with 0.68%). The strength of these associations did not change over time.Conclusions: Data from the U.S. general population, especially more recent data, suggest associations between self-reported psychotic disorder and frequent nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Clinicians and policy makers should consider these relationships when monitoring patients and formulating programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The DSM‐5 definition of alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been well validated, but information is lacking on the extent to which alcohol use, comorbidity, and impairment are associated with the 3 DSM‐5‐defined AUD severity levels: mild, moderate, and severe. This study examined clinical and functional characteristics as predictors (validators) of these severity levels. Methods: Participants aged ≥18 years reporting current problem substance use (N = 588) were recruited between 2016 and 2019 and assessed for DSM‐5 AUD and a set of potential validators: indicators of alcohol use severity (i.e., craving, binge drinking frequency, problematic use, and harmful drinking), psychiatric disorders, and functional impairment. Multinomial logistic regression models examined the association between the predictors and the 3 AUD severity levels (mild, moderate, and severe) vs the reference group, no AUD, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and other substance use. Results: All alcohol use validators were associated with a greater likelihood of all 3 AUD severity levels compared with the no‐AUD group. However, psychiatric disorders were associated only with severe AUD and participants with major depression (aOR = 2.44), posttraumatic stress disorder (aOR = 1.65), borderline personality disorder (aOR = 1.99), and antisocial personality disorder (aOR = 1.78) had a greater likelihood of severe AUD than the no‐AUD group. Functioning validators were also associated only with severe AUD and participants with social (aOR = 1.87), physical (aOR = 1.62), or mental (aOR = 1.84) impairment had a greater likelihood of severe AUD than the no‐AUD group. Many alcohol‐related, psychiatric, and functioning validators were associated with greater odds of severe AUD than mild or moderate AUD. Conclusion: This study supports the criterion validity of the DSM‐5 tri‐categorical measure of AUD. Specifically, results fully supported the validity of severe AUD by its associations with all predictors, whereas the validity of mild and moderate AUD was supported only by alcohol use predictor variables. Findings suggest the value of using severity‐specific interventions utilizing the DSM‐5 AUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Little is known about change over time in the prevalence of World Health Organization (WHO) risk drinking levels (very high, high, moderate, low) and their association with health conditions, overall and by gender. The authors used two sets of nationally representative U.S. survey data to determine whether changes over time varied by gender and to examine whether health conditions related to alcohol were associated with WHO risk drinking level within each survey, and whether these associations differed by gender.Methods: Data on current drinkers from the 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; N=26,655) and the 2012-2013 NESARC-III (N=25,659) were analyzed using logistic regression. Prevalence differences between surveys were estimated for each drinking level overall and by gender. Within each survey, prevalence differences by WHO risk drinking level were estimated for alcohol use disorder (AUD), drug use disorders, functional impairment, liver disease, and depressive and anxiety disorders.Results: In the 2012-2013 survey, the prevalences of moderate, high, and very high risk drinking were 5.9%, 3.2%, and 3.5%, respectively, representing significant increases from the prevalences in the 2001-2002 survey, which were 1.0%, 0.6%, and 0.9%, respectively. The increase for very high risk drinking among men (0.5%) was smaller than the increase among women (1.4%). Within both surveys, compared with low risk, health conditions were significantly associated with very high risk (range of prevalence differences, 2.2%-57.8%), high risk (2.6%-41.3%), and moderate risk (0.6%-29.8%) drinking. Associations were similar by gender, except that there were stronger effects for AUD in men and for functional impairment and depressive and anxiety disorders in women.Conclusions: The increase in potentially problematic drinking levels among U.S. adults emphasizes the need for better prevention and treatment strategies. The study results support the validity of the WHO risk drinking levels, which show clinical utility as nonabstinent drinking reduction treatment goals. Such goals could engage more people in treatment, improving public health by decreasing personal and societal consequences of risk drinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Due to significant comorbidity and impairment associated with cannabis use and cannabis use disorder, understanding time trends in cannabis use and cannabis use disorder is an important public health priority.Objectives: To identify trends in cannabis use and cannabis use disorder overall, and by sociodemographic subgroup.Methods: Narrative review of published findings on trends in cannabis use and cannabis use disorders in data from repeated cross-sectional US general population surveys. In addition, in National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; 2002-2002) and NESARC-III (2012-2013) data, logistic regression was used to examine whether trends differed between subgroups of adults.Results: The review showed that in adults, cannabis use increased over the past decade overall and within sociodemographic subgroups (gender, age, race/ethnicity, income, education, marital status, urbanicity, region, pregnancy status, disability status), with greater increases in men and disabled adults. Most sources also indicated significant increases in cannabis use disorders. New analysis showed significantly greater increases in adult cannabis use and cannabis use disorder in men (p ≤ .0001); young adults (p < .05); Blacks (vs. Whites, p < .01); low income groups (p < .001); never-married p ≤ .0001), and urban residents (p < .05). In adolescents, cannabis use generally decreased, although recent increases were observed in older and non-White adolescents.Conclusion: Cannabis use and cannabis use disorder are increasing in adults, with specific sociodemographic groups at higher risk, and may be increasing in some adolescent subgroups. Studies should determine mechanisms for differential trends to provide information to policymakers and enable informed decisions on cannabis legalization and service planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To evaluate relationships between measures of cognitive functioning and alcohol or drug use among adults (≥ 18 years) in the US general population. Design Two cognitive scales were created based on dimensionality and reliability of self-reported Executive Function Index items. Relationships between the two scales and validators were evaluated. Associations between the cognitive scales and past-year frequency of alcohol or drug use were estimated with adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Setting United States, using the 2012-13 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III, a nationally representative adult sample selected by multi-stage probability sampling. Participants 36 085 respondents. Measurements Past-year substance use outcome variables categorized binge drinking, marijuana, cocaine, opioid, sedative/tranquilizer and stimulant use as frequent (at least weekly to daily), infrequent (any to two to three times/month) or no use, assessed by the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5. Key predictors were the two cognitive scales. Construct validators included education and functional impairment. Covariates included age, gender, income and race/ethnicity. Findings Nine cognitive items fitted a two-factor model (comparative fit index = 0.973): attention (five items) and executive functioning (four items). Both scales were associated positively with higher education ( Ps < 0.001) and negatively with functional impairment ( Ps < 0.001), demonstrating construct validity. Poorer attention was associated with frequent and infrequent binge drinking and use of drugs [aOR range = 1.07 (binge drinking) to 1.72 (stimulants), Ps ≤ 0.01]. Poorer executive functioning was associated with frequent binge drinking and use of drugs [aOR range = 1.22 (binge drinking) to 2.03 (cocaine), Ps < 0.001] and infrequent use of all drugs [aOR range = 1.19 (marijuana) to 1.63 (cocaine), Ps < 0.001]. Conclusions Impairments in attention and executive functioning are positively associated with substance use in the US general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While men show greater prevalence of cannabis use disorder (CUD) than women, whether cannabis use frequency drives this difference is unknown, and little is known about sex differences in problems associated with CUD. We therefore assessed the association of CUD with sex, adjusted for frequency of use, and compared the association of psychosocial and health-related problems with CUD between men and women. We included US adults age ≥ 18 who reported past-year cannabis use in the 2012–2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (n = 3701). Cannabis use frequency, DSM-5 CUD and problems (interpersonal, financial, legal, health-related) were assessed. Associations between psychosocial problems, sex and DSM-5 CUD were assessed using prevalence differences (PD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression models, controlling for demographics and cannabis use frequency, and effect modification by sex was assessed. We found that the prevalence of CUD among men versus women was not significantly greater after adjusting for use frequency. Women had significantly higher prevalence of interpersonal, financial and health-related problems than men, adjusting for frequency of use. Women showed significantly greater association of CUD with interpersonal problems with a boss or co-workers (p < 0.05) and a neighbor, relative or friend (p < 0.05) compared to men. Lack of sex differences in CUD after adjusting for frequency of use suggests use frequency may be an important target of CUD prevention efforts. CUD showed stronger associations for interpersonal problems among women than men, suggesting the need for particular emphasis on treating interpersonal problems related to cannabis use among women. • Men reported significantly higher frequency of cannabis use than women. • CUD prevalence was not different among men and women, adjusting for use frequency. • CUD was associated with greater prevalence of interpersonal problems among women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Little is known about the relationship between stressful life events and alcohol craving in the general population, and whether a history of childhood maltreatment sensitizes individuals to crave alcohol after adult stressors. Methods Participants were 22,147 past-year drinkers from Wave 2 (2004 to 2005) of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. A structured, face-to-face interview assessed past-year stressful life events, alcohol craving, and history of childhood maltreatment. Logistic regression was used to generate adjusted odds ratios ( aOR) to evaluate the relationship between stressful life events and craving, adjusting for demographic characteristics and parental history of alcoholism. Interaction between stressful life events and childhood maltreatment was also assessed. Results Compared to participants with no stressful life events, those with ≥3 events had increased odds of moderate alcohol craving ( aOR = 3.15 [95% CI = 2.30 to 4.33]) and severe craving ( aOR = 8.47 [95% CI = 4.78 to 15.01]). Stressful life events and childhood maltreatment interacted in predicting severe craving ( p = 0.017); those with ≥3 events were at higher risk of craving if they had been exposed to childhood maltreatment. Conclusions A direct relationship between stressful life events and risk of alcohol craving was observed. Further, history of childhood maltreatment increased the salience of stressful life events in adulthood. Future studies should examine the role of psychiatric comorbidity in more complex models of stress sensitization and alcohol craving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In DSM-5, definitions of substance use disorders (SUD) were changed considerably from DSM-IV, yet little is known about how well DSM-IV and DSM-5 SUD diagnoses agree among substance users. Because data from many studies are based on DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, understanding the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD diagnoses and reasons for discordance between these diagnoses is crucial for comparing results across studies.Measurements: Prevalences and chance-corrected agreement of DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV substance dependence were evaluated in 588 substance users in a suburban inpatient addiction program and an urban medical center, using a semi-structured interview (PRISM-5). Alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, opioid, sedative, and stimulant use disorders were examined. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD (abuse or dependence), DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence, and DSM-5 moderate/severe SUD and DSM-IV dependence.Results: Agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD was excellent for all substances (κ = 0.84-0.99), except for cannabis and tobacco (κ = 0.75; 0.80, respectively). The most common reason for diagnostic discrepancies was a positive DSM-5 SUD diagnosis but no DSM-IV diagnosis, due to the lowered DSM-5 SUD threshold. Agreement between DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence was excellent for all substances (κ = 0.88-0.94), except for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis (κ = 0.63-0.75). Agreement between moderate/severe DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence was excellent across all substances.Conclusion: While care should be used in interpreting results of studies using different methods, studies relying on DSM-IV or DSM-5 SUD diagnostic criteria offer similar information and thus can be compared when accumulating a body of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• In a 2021 survey of 4,328 adult past-7-day cannabis users, 57.0% used concentrates. • Concentrate use was higher in states with medical or recreational marijuana laws. • Determining mechanisms of the differences by state law is important for prevention. Compared to plant/flower cannabis products, cannabis concentrates have higher average potency of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), which may be associated with greater likelihood of cannabis-related harms. Information on factors associated with use of cannabis concentrates is needed. Respondents were 4,328 adult past-7-day cannabis users from all 50 U.S. states and Washington DC (DC) who participated in an online 2021 survey. Using logistic regression to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR), we investigated whether participants in states that enacted recreational cannabis laws (RCL, 12 states plus DC [treated as a state], n = 1,236) or medical cannabis laws (MCL-only, 23 states, n = 2,030) by December 31, 2020 were more likely than those in states without cannabis laws (no-CL, 15 states, n = 1,062) to use cannabis concentrate products in the prior 7 days. Most participants (92.4%) used plant material in the prior 7 days; 57.0% used cannabis concentrates. In RCL, MCL and no-CL states, concentrate use was reported by 61.5%, 56.6%, and 52.5%, respectively. Compared to participants in no-CL states, odds of using cannabis concentrate products were greater among those in RCL states (aOR = 1.47; CI = 1.17–1.84) and MCL-only states (aOR = 1.29; CI = 1.08–1.55). Whether states had legally-authorized dispensaries had little effect on results. Results suggest that individuals in MCL-only and RCL states are more likely to use cannabis concentrate products. Determining mechanisms underlying these results, e.g., commercialization, could provide important information for prevention. Clinicians should be alert to patient use of concentrates, especially in MCL-only and RCL states. Continued monitoring is warranted as additional states legalize cannabis use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Highly-potent cannabis products, e.g., concentrates, entail greater risks of cannabis-related harms than lower-potency products such as plant or flower material. However, little information is available on whether individuals in U.S. states with recreational cannabis laws (RCL) or medical cannabis laws (MCL) are more likely than individuals in U.S. states without cannabis legalization (no-CL) to use highly-potent forms of cannabis.Methods: Cannabis-using adults in a 2017 online survey (N = 4064) provided information on state of residence and past-month cannabis use, including types of products used, categorized as low-potency (smoked or vaped plant cannabis) or high-potency (vaping or dabbing concentrates). Multivariable logistic regression models generated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for use of high-potency cannabis products by state cannabis legalization status (RCL, MCL, no-CL).Results: Compared to participants in no-CL states, participants in RCL states had greater odds of using high-potency concentrate products (aOR=2.61;CI=1.77-3.86), as did participants in MCL-only states (aOR=1.55;CI=1.21-1.97). When participants in RCL states and MCL states were directly compared, those in RCL states had greater odds of using high-potency concentrate products (aOR=1.69;CI=1.27-2.42).Discussion: Although the sample was not nationally representative and the cross-sectional data precluded determining the direction of effect, results suggest that use of high-potency cannabis concentrates is more likely among those in RCL states. Clinicians in RCL states should screen cannabis users for harmful patterns of use. Policymakers in states that do not yet have RCL should consider these findings when drafting new cannabis laws, including the specific products permitted and how best to regulate them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the problems associated with alcohol use disorder (AUD) are well known, little is known about the psychosocial problems associated with cannabis use disorder (CUD), and the harmfulness of CUD relative to AUD. We compared the odds of psychosocial and health-related problems between individuals with DSM-5 AUD-only, CUD-only and co-occurring AUD+CUD.Methods: The 2012-2013 NESARC-III, a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of non-institutionalized US adults (n = 36,309), assessed participants for DSM-5 AUD, CUD, and psychosocial (interpersonal, financial, legal) and health-related problems. Based on their responses, participants were categorized into mutually exclusive groups: no AUD/CUD, AUD-only, CUD-only, and AUD+CUD. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the associations between psychosocial problems and the four AUD/CUD groups, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.Results: People with AUD-only, CUD-only, and AUD+CUD had higher odds of most interpersonal problems (adjusted odds ratio [aORs] 1.07-4.01), financial problems (aORs 1.53-4.28), legal problems (aORs 3.34-7.71), and health-related problems (aORs 1.29-1.92). The odds of psychosocial and health-related problems were similar for CUD-only and AUD-only in direct comparisons. Compared to those with AUD-only, those with AUD+CUD had higher odds of most problems examined (aORs 1.42-2.31). In contrast, there were few differences when comparing AUD+CUD with CUD-only.Conclusions: AUD and CUD were similarly associated with interpersonal, financial, and legal problems, emergency treatment and suicide attempt. People with AUD+CUD had higher odds of certain problems than individuals with either AUD-only or CUD-only. Although most people who use cannabis do not experience harms, our results indicate that CUD does not appear to be less harmful than AUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of novel cannabis products whose primary active compound is Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC), an isomer of Delta-9 THC has recently surged. While Delta-8 THC has psychoactive effects and is potentially harmful, little is known about its use. We examined sociodemographic characteristics, motivations, and consumption patterns of Delta-8 THC in US adult cannabis users.Methods: Cannabis-using adult online survey participants (N = 4,348) provided information on Delta-8 use, and other characteristics. We assessed frequencies of sociodemographics, patterns, and correlates of Delta-8 THC use. Regression models estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of associations between past 30-day Delta-8 THC use, sociodemographic and other characteristics.Findings: Among past 30-day cannabis users, 16.7% reported Delta-8 THC use. The most common consumption method was vaping concentrated formulations of Delta-8 THC (41.2%). Primary motivations for use were its legal status and perceived therapeutic benefits. Males were more likely than females to report Delta-8 THC use (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.2, 1.7). Respondents residing in states with restrictions on sales of Delta-8 THC products had lower odds of Delta-8 THC use (aOR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.57, 0.86).Conclusions: Findings provide initial insight into the current state of Delta-8 THC use in the US. Given the limited knowledge on use of Delta-8 THC, and considering emergence of reports indicating its harmful effects, there is urgent need for nationally representative data to investigate correlates of Delta-8 THC use (e.g., effectiveness of state-specific restrictions on its products). Such information can guide public-health policy around Delta-8 THC use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent decades, the US religious landscape has undergone considerable change such as a decline in religious service attendance. These changes may indicate that religious social support structures have deteriorated, possibly leading to a decrease in strengths of associations with substance use. Considering this, and given limitations of past studies (e.g., limited control for potential confounders), large-scale general population studies are needed to reexamine associations between religiosity domains and substance use.Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (N = 36,309). In unadjusted and adjusted models, controlling for religiosity domains and other covariates, we examined associations between three religiosity domains (importance of religiosity/spirituality, service attendance, and religious affiliation) and DSM-5 SUD. Focusing on service attendance, we also examined associations with other substance use-related outcomes.Results: Among religiosity domains, only frequency of service attendance was associated with SUD across most substances. Frequent service attendees had lower odds of alcohol use disorder (adjusted OR [aOR] = 0.4, 95 % CI 0.33,0.51), tobacco use disorder (aOR = 0.3, 95 % CI 0.22,0.33) and cannabis use disorder (aOR = 0.4, 95 % CI 0.24,0.68), compared to non-service attendees. For alcohol and tobacco, the protective effect of frequent service attendance was more robust for SUD than for respective substance use.Conclusions: Despite decreasing rates of religious belief and practice in the US, service attendance independently lowered the odds of substance use and SUD across multiple substances. Results may inform religious leaders and clinicians about the value of utilizing religious social support structures in the prevention and treatment of substance use and SUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]