pmc0400640446Am J OrthopsychiatryAm J OrthopsychiatryThe American journal of orthopsychiatry0002-94321939-002532352815904875110.1037/ort0000456NIHMS1793781ArticleHazardous Drinking, Alcohol Use Disorders, and Need for Treatment Among Pacific Islander Young AdultsSubicaAndrew M.http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-7668Department of Social Medicine, Population, and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, RiversideGuerreroErickI-Lead Institute, Los Angeles, CaliforniaAitaotoNiahttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1823-9688College of Health, University of UtahMossHoward B.http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8577-0984Department of Social Medicine, Population, and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, RiversideIwamotoDerekDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland, College ParkWuLi-TzySchool of Medicine, Duke UniversityCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew M. Subica, Department of Social Medicine, Population, and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92521. subica@gmail.com542022202030420202842022905557566

Pacific Islander (PI) young adults are suspected to bear heavy risk for hazardous drinking, alcohol use disorders (AUD), and alcohol-related harms. Yet, PIs remain among the most understudied racial groups in the United States—creating a lack of empirical data documenting their alcohol use problems and treatment needs. The present study presents the first known data on PI young adults’ hazardous drinking, possible AUDs, alcohol-related harms, and treatment needs. Survey data were collected from 156 community-dwelling PI young adults (40% women, age 18–30 years) in 2 large PI communities: Los Angeles County and Northwest Arkansas. We screened participants for alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use, hazardous drinking, possible AUD, alcohol-related harms, and past-year need for mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Logistic regressions examined whether experiencing possible AUD and alcohol-related harms were associated with past-year need for treatment. PI young adults reported 78% lifetime rate of alcohol use with 56% screening positive for hazardous drinking, 49% for any possible AUD, and 40% experiencing significant alcohol-related harm (e.g., health, finances). Yet, just 25% of participants reported past-year need for SUD treatment. Although having possible AUD was not associated with perceived SUD treatment need, experiencing any alcohol-related harm associated with 4.7–13.2 times greater adjusted odds for needing treatment. Therefore, despite having low self-perceived treatment need, PI young adults experience excessive burden of hazardous drinking and alcohol-related harms. Given the profound negative social and health effects of AUDs, culturally grounded interventions should be designed to reduce PI young adults’ elevated rates of hazardous drinking and alcohol-related harms.

alcohol-related harmalcohol use disorderNative Hawaiian and Pacific Islandertreatment need

Little is known about the alcohol use patterns, problems, and treatment needs affecting Pacific Islanders (PI), who comprise one of only six federally designated U.S. racial groups. Paralleling indigenous American Indians, PIs have endured extensive adverse colonization and historical trauma that have contributed to a multitude of mental and physical health disparities (e.g., depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease; Crabbe, 1998; Empowering Pacific Islander Communities and Asian Americans Advancing Justice, 2014; Mau, Sinclair, Saito, Baumhofer, & Kaholokula, 2009; Subica, Agarwal, Sullivan, & Link, 2017)—experiences that likely increase PIs’ risk for hazardous drinking, alcohol use disorders (AUD), and alcohol-related harms.

Unfortunately, we know less about PIs’ alcohol use and associated problems than other major U.S. racial groups because PIs have been minimally investigated in substance use/misuse research (Wu & Blazer, 2015). This may be attributable to PIs’ smaller population sizes and mistaken aggregation in health data with Asian Americans—who have among the lowest substance use rates in the United States (Wu & Blazer, 2015). These factors have persistently masked the alcohol problems and needs that impact PI communities, preventing the development of effective alcohol prevention and treatment services for this neglected population.

Given the dearth of U.S. substance use/misuse research on PIs, we must infer from international data showing high rates of PI hazardous drinking and related harms (Howard, Ali, & Robins, 2011; Teevale et al., 2012) that U.S. PIs bear a similarly heavy, underexamined burden of hazardous drinking and harms. For instance, in New Zealand (Ministry of Health, 2009), despite 61.2% of PIs (vs. 87.0% of non-PIs) consuming alcohol during the prior year, 24.5% of PIs (vs. 20.1% of non-PIs) engaged in heavy episodic drinking (i.e., binge drinking). Per year, PIs consumed an average of 21 L of alcohol versus 11 L for non-PIs, with 33% of PIs (vs. only 9% of non-PIs) becoming heavily intoxicated and greater proportions of PIs versus non-PIs experiencing alcohol-related violence, injury, and social problems (Huakau et al., 2005; Ministry of Health, 2009). In the United States, the few existing studies of Native Hawaiian youth have identified the most severe alcohol problems of all Hawaii’s youth. These include high rates of alcohol use, heavy episodic drinking, and chronic drinking (Klingle & Miller, 1999; Nishimura, Goebert, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Caetano, 2005), which are associated with increased risk of suicide (Nishimura et al., 2005), violence (Goebert, Park, & Nishimura, 2004), and risky sexual behavior (Ramisetty-Mikler, Goebert, Nishimura, & Caetano, 2006). Similarly, data from the Hawaii State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division indicate that Native Hawaiian adults reported higher age-adjusted rates of 30-day heavy episodic drinking than White adults for every examined year between 2011 to 2017 (Hawai’i State Epidemiological Outcomes Workgroup, 2018).

When expanding beyond the Hawaii context to examining the sparse existing U.S. epidemiological data on PI alcohol use, both disaggregated Native Hawaiian and PI adult populations in the 1999–2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data reported greater prevalence of alcohol dependence than their White counterparts (Sakai, Wang, & Price, 2010). Additionally, 25 years of U.S. Youth Risk Behavior Survey data indicated that PI youth had among the highest prevalence of preteen alcohol use (30.3%) and heavy episodic drinking (27.5%) of all U.S. racial groups (Subica & Wu, 2018), whereas PI adults reported AUDs at four times the national rate in a prior community study (Subica, Aitaoto, Link, et al., 2019).

Yet, despite PIs’ potentially heavy alcohol burden, PIs rarely engage in formal treatment services (Masson et al., 2013). In national treatment data (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013), PIs combined with Asian Americans sought substance use disorder (SUD) treatment at half the rate of other racial groups (5.3% vs. 10.4% national rate). In treatment data from Los Angeles County (Harder, 2015)—one of this study’s target areas with a population of more than 65,000 PIs—fewer PIs enter public SUD treatment each year (0.09% in 2011, 0.08% in 2013, 0.07% in 2015). However, no studies have examined the need for SUD treatment within PI communities, an empirical gap this study sought to address.

For this exploratory study, we chose to investigate alcohol use problems among PI young adults (18 to 30 years old) for two reasons. First, in the general substance use/misuse literature, young adults experience the greatest increases in rates of hazardous drinking, AUDs, and alcohol-related harms as a result of increased new freedoms (e.g., reduced informal social controls, increased access to money and alcohol) and life stressors (e.g., balancing greater work–academic demands with social pressures, such as contributing financially to the family; Arnett, 2005; Bachman, Wadsworth, O’Malley, Johnston, & Schulenberg, 2013; Maggs & Schulenberg, 2005; White et al., 2006). Second, unpublished reports from several PI communities to our team suggested that young adults may bear PI communities’ heaviest alcohol-related risks and harms, resulting in significant community-wide harm through alcohol-related drunk driving, battery, property damage, interpersonal violence, and suicide.

In developing the first study funded by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to examine alcohol use in PI communities, our exploratory study had several goals. The first was to determine the scope of alcohol use, hazardous drinking, possible AUDs, alcohol-related harms, and need for SUD treatment among PI young adults. Because of the strong correlation of alcohol use with other substance use, we also explored co-occurring alcohol use with cigarettes and marijuana as they constitute the nation’s three most commonly used substances (Schulenberg et al., 2017). Lastly, given that (a) PIs rarely seek behavioral health treatment services and (b) self-perceived need for treatment is the first step in promoting minority behavioral health treatment-seeking behavior (Cauce et al., 2002; Eiraldi, Mazzuca, Clarke, & Power, 2006), we sought to identify whether PI young adults’ alcohol use would influence their perceived need for behavioral health treatment to better understand how to engage this treatment-averse population in care. Drawing from the sparse substance use/misuse literature on PIs, we hypothesized that for PI young adults, screened rates of hazardous drinking, possible AUDs, and alcohol-related harms would be high, leading to high perceived need for mental health and SUD treatment but also high levels of not receiving needed treatment (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013).

MethodStudy Sample and Recruitment

Study protocols were approved by the University of California, Riverside IRB. A total of 156 PI participants aged 18 to 30 years old were recruited between May and November 2019 from two large U.S. PI communities: Samoans in urban Los Angeles County, California (the largest PI community in the continental United States) and Marshallese in rural Northwest Arkansas (the fastest growing PI community in the United States; U.S. Census, 2010). We targeted PI populations living on the continental United States because the majority of extant research has focused on examining substance use among PI populations living in Hawaii. This has created a sizable substance use knowledge gap involving PI communities on the continental United States “as more than half of these communities” grew at a rate of 50% or greater grew at a rate of 50% or greater from 2000 to 2010 (Hixson, Hepler, & Kim, 2012). Following established best practices for engaging hard-to-reach minority populations (Alvarez, Vasquez, Mayorga, Feaster, & Mitrani, 2006; Breland-Noble & AAKOMA, 2012), trained PI-heritage staff from local community-based organizations conducted study recruitment and survey administration.

To obtain a representative cross-section of PI young adult alcohol-related perspectives and experiences, we employed a non-probabilistic respondent-driven sampling approach (Mays & Pope, 1995). Using a planned enrollment table stratifying residents by sex and age (18–20, 21–25, 26–30 years), staff purposively recruited participants (a) in-person from diverse community institutions frequented by PI young adults (e.g., cultural organizations, recreational centers) and (b) through direct outreach via social media and online groups/forums. Participants completed informed consent and self-administered surveys in English in 30–45 min, receiving $20.

MeasuresDemographics and health.

Study demographic variables were sex, age, and education. Participant mental and physical health were assessed using the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12; Ware, Kosinski, & Keller, 1996), a well-established measure that provides composite mental health and physical health status scores. Lower composite scores indicate lower health status, with a general population score of 50.0 used as reference (Ware et al., 1996).

Alcohol use, hazardous drinking, and possible AUD.

Alcohol use, hazardous drinking, and possible AUD were determined via Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Concise (AUDIT-C; Bush, Kivlahan, McDonell, Fihn, & Bradley, 1998). To assess alcohol use, hazardous drinking, and possible AUD, the AUDIT-C queries: (a) “How often did you have a drink containing alcohol in the past year?” (b) “How many drinks did you have on a typical day when you were drinking in the past year?” and (3) “How often did you have six or more drinks on one occasion?” This widely used and validated brief screening tool has been determined more effective in detecting hazardous drinking than well-established alcohol screening laboratory tests including AST/ALT ratio (aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase) and MCV (mean corpuscular volume; Fujii et al., 2016). On the AUDIT-C, higher cumulative scores indicate higher levels of hazardous drinking or severity of AUD. To identify hazardous drinking behavior, the AUDIT-C uses a cumulative cutoff score of ≥4 for men and ≥3 for women (scoring range = 0–12; Bush et al., 1998), yielding excellent screening performance across diverse racial groups (Frank et al., 2008). Additionally, the AUDIT-C has been repeatedly shown to effectively screen for the presence of possible AUD (Bush et al., 1998; Dawson, Grant, Stinson, & Zhou, 2005; Rubinsky, Dawson, Williams, Kivlahan, & Bradley, 2013; Rubinsky, Kivlahan, Volk, Maynard, & Bradley, 2010), with an updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM–5) AUD diagnostic cutoff score of ≥4 for men and women indicating moderate AUD (endorsement of 2–3 DSM–5 criteria) and ≥5 indicating severe AUD (endorsement of ≥4 DSM–5 criteria; Dawson, Smith, Saha, Rubinsky, & Grant, 2012). These updated AUD diagnostic cutoff scores possess excellent sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and area under the curve scores (Dawson et al., 2012). In our study, to differentiate between any possible AUD versus moderate AUD versus severe AUD in our sample, aligning with established DSM–5 AUD diagnostic severity cutoff score guidelines (Dawson et al., 2012), we set the diagnostic cutoff score for (a) any possible AUD (i.e., moderate or severe AUD) ≥ 4, (b) moderate AUD = 4, and (c) severe AUD ≥5.

Cigarette and marijuana use.

Cigarette and marijuana use were assessed to analyze their use in the context of Pacific Islander young adults’ alcohol use. Lifetime cigarette use was measured by positive response to the question: “Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?” Current cigarette use was determined by responding Some days or Every day to: “Do you smoke cigarettes every day, some days, or not at all?” Lifetime marijuana use was defined by positive response to: “Have you ever, even once, tried marijuana or hashish in any form?” Current marijuana use was defined as any nonzero response to the question: “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you use marijuana, hashish, or another THC product?”

Alcohol-related harms.

Alcohol-related harms were assessed using the reliable Alcohol-Related Harm scale (test–retest κ = 0.72; Bondy & Lange, 2000), which asked participants to answer yes or no if they felt “your alcohol use had a harmful effect on your: (a) friendships or social life; (b) physical health; (c) home life or marriage; (d) work, studies, or employment opportunities; and (e) finances.” The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .82).

Perceived need for treatment.

Past-year perceived need for mental health and SUD treatment were assessed using validated items from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2011), which stated: “In the past 12 months, was there a time when you wanted to talk with or seek help about (a) stress, depression, or problems with emotions?” and (b) “problems with alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, pain medication, or any other type of substance?” To determine whether participants’ received needed mental health and SUD treatment, follow-up questions were asked: “Did you delay or not get the care you thought you needed?”

Data Analyses

We conducted analyses in SPSS v.24 (IBM Corporation, 2016). Descriptive statistics generated frequencies, means, and standard deviations. Chi-square and independent t tests identified significant sex differences in variable frequencies and mean scores, respectively. To explore whether key alcohol-related variables (i.e., AUD and the five alcohol-related harms) associated with participants’ perceived need for treatment (the first step in the minority treatment-seeking pathway; Eiraldi et al., 2006), we conducted two sets of logistic regression models with past-year need for mental health treatment and past-year need for SUD treatment the respective dependent variables for each set. Independent variables consistent across all models were: (a) demographics of sex, age, education, and PI ethnicity (Samoan, Marshallese); (b) mental health and physical health status; and (c) screened presence of possible AUD. Additionally, we separately included each of the five alcohol-related harms as independent variables—generating five unique harm models per dependent variable—to isolate which alcohol-related harms may most contribute to perceived treatment need (and thus be ideal intervention targets for increasing PI young adults’ perceived treatment need).

ResultsSample Characteristics and Use of Alcohol, Cigarettes, and Marijuana

Participant characteristics including frequencies of alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use are detailed in Table 1. Among PI participants (N = 156), 60% were men and 66% were of Marshallese heritage, with an average age of 23.7 years.

Seventy-eight percent of participants reported lifetime alcohol use, 53% reported lifetime cigarette use, and 54% reported lifetime marijuana use, with significantly more PI men than women reporting lifetime use of alcohol (p < .01) and cigarettes (p < .05). Additionally, 52% and 49% of participants reported current use of cigarettes and marijuana, respectively—only slightly lower than the lifetime rates—with significantly more men reporting current cigarette use (p < .01). Lifetime rates of using multiple substances were high with 47% (n = 73) of participants reporting dual alcohol-cigarette use and 30% (n = 47) of participants reporting lifetime alcohol-cigarette-marijuana use.

Rates of Hazardous Drinking, Possible, Moderate, and Severe AUD, and Alcohol-Related Harms

Among participants, 56% screened positive for hazardous drinking (AUDIT-C score of ≥4 for men and ≥3 for women) with 60% of PI men and 50% of PI women meeting thresholds indicating hazardous drinking. Similarly, 44% (n = 68) of all participants reported having six or more drinks—that is, heavy episodic drinking—at least once per month, and 33% (n = 51) described consuming five or more drinks on a typical drinking day. Forty-nine percent of participants met the diagnostic cutoff for any possible AUD—that is, possessing moderate or severe AUD (AUDIT-C score ≥4; Dawson et al., 2012)—with 8% meeting the diagnostic cutoff for moderate AUD (AUDIT-C score = 4) and 42% meeting the diagnostic cutoff for severe AUD (AUDIT = C ≥ 5).

Forty percent reported that alcohol use had a harmful effect on their lives. Of the five major alcohol-related harms, the most commonly endorsed harms stemming from alcohol use were harm to physical health (22%), social life and friendships (21%), finances (21%), and work, studies, or employment opportunities (21%).

Perceived Treatment Need

Aligning with our hypothesis of high levels of both PI perceived treatment need and high levels of not receiving needed treatment, 45% of participants perceived needing past-year mental health treatment with 30% of all participants reporting not receiving needed treatment. However, just one quarter of participants perceived a need for past-year SUD treatment with 17% of all participants reporting not receiving needed SUD treatment. Among participants with AUD, only 30% (n = 23) perceived the need for past-year SUD treatment.

Logistic Regressions of Perceived Mental Health and SUD Treatment Need by Alcohol-Related Harm

To examine whether demographics, health status, AUD, and alcohol-related harms were associated with PI participants’ perceived past-year need for mental health and SUD treatment, we conducted two sets of logistic regressions.

For the logistic models of perceived past-year need for mental health treatment regressed by the individual alcohol-related harms (see Table 2), for each harm model (excluding the harm to work/studies model), Samoan participants were 3.1–3.4 times more likely to perceive past-year need for mental health treatment versus Marshallese participants (p < .05), whereas a 1-point decrease in mental health status associated with 0.9 times greater likelihood of perceiving past-year need (p < .05). For alcohol-related harms, experiencing harm to physical health, harm to home life, and harm to work/studies associated with 3.2, 4.6, and 2.9 times greater likelihood of perceiving past-year mental health treatment need (p < .05). Notably, screened presence of possible AUD did not significantly predict past-year need in any model.

For the logistic models of perceived past-year need for SUD treatment regressed by the individual alcohol-related harms (see Table 3), in all five harm models, a 1-point decrease in mental health status associated with 0.9–1.0 times greater likelihood of perceiving past-year SUD treatment need (p < .05). Similarly, every alcohol-related harm in our five models associated with significantly greater likelihood for perceiving past-year SUD treatment need (p < .05) ranging from 4.7 times greater likelihood of harm to work/studies up to 13.2 times greater likelihood of harm to home life. Screened presence of possible AUD did not significantly predict past-year SUD treatment need in any model.

Discussion

The current exploratory study is among the first to detail the alcohol use patterns, harms, and associated need for treatment present within U.S. PI communities. We specifically investigated alcohol use among PI young adults because unconfirmed community reports combined with the general substance use literature suggested they bear the heaviest community risk for hazardous drinking, AUDs, and alcohol-related harms. Yet, despite their heavy risk, prior to this study, PI young adults were notably absent from existing substance use/misuse literature.

Accordingly, our novel findings revealed that a startling 56% of PI young adults screened positive for hazardous drinking and 49% met diagnostic thresholds for possible AUD based on the current AUDIT-C DSM–5 diagnostic cutoffs for moderate and severe AUD (Dawson et al., 2012). These rates of possible AUD were more than eight times the national AUD rate (NSDUH, 2015) and more than two times the reported AUD rate for PI adults (Subica, Aitaoto, Link, et al., 2019). Additionally, six in 10 PI young adults who had ever used alcohol screened positive for hazardous drinking, and nearly half of all participants reported heavy episodic drinking of at least six drinks monthly or more.

Because heavy episodic drinking is associated with increased risk for multiple life harms (Rehm, Taylor, & Patra, 2006; Room, Babor, & Rehm, 2005), it is therefore unsurprising that 40% of PI participants reported their drinking had adversely affected their social life, physical health, home life, work/studies, or finances. This substantially exceeds the 4% to 9% general population rate, and 21.5% rate for high-risk young adults found in non-U.S. national samples (Giesbrecht & Thomas, 2010; Room, Bondy, & Ferris, 1995). Collectively, our results confirm our hypothesis that hazardous drinking, possible AUDs, and alcohol-related harms are pervasive among PI young adults, even matching or surpassing those reported for indigenous American Indian populations—the racial group with the highest prevalence of AUDs and alcohol-related deaths in the current literature (Ehlers, Stouffer, & Gilder, 2014; Falk, Yi, & Hiller-Sturmhöfel, 2006).

Given PI young adults’ high rates of hazardous drinking and possible AUDs, we further hypothesized that a large proportion of participants would endorse a need for mental health and SUD treatment but that most would report not receiving needed treatment. As expected, nearly half of participants reported past-year need for mental health treatment, with 67% of these participants not receiving needed mental health treatment. Unexpectedly, only 25% of participants reported perceiving a past-year need for SUD treatment—despite nearly half of all participants screening positive for possible AUD—with 69% of these participants not receiving needed SUD treatment, for reasons that are unclear. Therefore, PI young adults may possess both high unrecognized SUD treatment need (evidenced by participants’ low perceived SUD need) and unmet treatment need (evidenced by participants’ high rates of not receiving needed SUD treatment), placing these community PIs at elevated risk for experiencing alcohol-related harm.

Based on the glaring discrepancy between participants’ high rates of hazardous drinking and possible AUDs but low perceived SUD treatment need—suggesting poor problem recognition, the first step in the minority treatment-seeking pathway (Cauce et al., 2002; Eiraldi et al., 2006)—we next sought to identify whether alcohol-related harms and presence of possible AUD predicted perceived treatment need (i.e., problem recognition). After controlling for participant demographics and health status, having a possible AUD had no association with participants’ perceived need for SUD treatment. This finding extends earlier research that found no relationship between PIs’ increased hazardous drinking and perceived need for mental health treatment (Subica, Aitaoto, Link, et al., 2019), but had failed to examine this relationship with regard to SUD treatment. Based on our study results, it appears that educating PI young adults experiencing AUDs about their AUDs would be unlikely to increase their recognition that formal treatment is needed (Cauce et al., 2002). Instead, our finding that experiencing alcohol-related harms associated with four to 13 times greater likelihood for perceiving a need for SUD treatment—after controlling for possible AUD—suggests a more effective strategy for increasing PIs’ perceived need may be to emphasize the negative social, health, and financial ramifications of their hazardous drinking.

Accounting for our unanticipated finding of PI young adults’ pervasive hazardous drinking and possible AUDs but low perceived need for SUD treatment may be the unique social role of alcohol in PI cultures (Huakau et al., 2005). Mirroring food, alcohol is typically consumed in groups with PIs expected to (a) offer large quantities of alcohol to group members to demonstrate generosity and kinship and (b) consume all offered alcohol until finished (Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand, 1997; 2003). As a result of this culturally sanctioned role of alcohol in bringing PI adults together (Huakau et al., 2005), U.S. PI young adults may be perceiving hazardous drinking and resulting AUDs as culturally normative social activities rather than problematic behaviors necessitating treatment.

Unfortunately, this cultural normalization of heavy episodic drinking and AUDs may have profound health consequences for PI young adults as even occasional heavy episodic drinking is associated with heightened risk for negative health outcomes such as greater alcohol dependence (Greenfield et al., 2014), injuries (Brewer & Swahn, 2005), and chronic disease and death (Chikritzhs, Jonas, Stockwell, Heale, & Dietze, 2001; Roerecke et al., 2011). Because PIs already experience myriad health disparities (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, cancer)—for example, our young adult participants received substantially lower mean physical health scores compared with the general population—reducing PI young adults’ rates of hazardous drinking and AUDs may have important repercussions for improving the health and longevity of this vulnerable racial population. To design interventions to achieve this goal, further research is now needed to identify the major factors driving PIs’ increased risk for hazardous drinking, AUDs, and alcohol-related harms such as permissive cultural/peer heavy drinking norms and alcohol’s cheaper availability in the United States versus the Pacific.

Limitations

Several limitations are present in this unique community study. First, nonprobability sampling may have introduced bias and restricted generalizability. To account for this, we recruited participants from two highly divergent PI communities on the continental United States and an array of community/social media settings using a planned enrollment table—an established approach for capturing representative cross-sections of hard-to-reach community PIs for similar research (Subica, Aitaoto, Link, et al., 2019; Subica, Aitaoto, Sullivan, et al., 2019). Also, given the scarcity of PI alcohol data and high degree of hazardous alcohol use and harms found in this study, even with some bias these problems are likely to remain much higher for U.S. PI young adults (PIs) versus the general population. In fact, owing to the frequent minimization of substance use among minority populations (Mensch & Kandel, 1988) and our use of self-report data, it is more likely underreporting rather than overreporting may have occurred—leading to underestimation of PI young adults’ true rates of alcohol problems and needs. Similarly, as the first study to directly assess PI alcohol use, hazardous drinking, possible AUDs, and related harms within hard-to-reach PI communities using community-based outreach and engagement practices, our sample size—although sufficient to power our analyses—could not support large-scale population-based epidemiological analyses. Having now identified the potentially large scope of alcohol misuse and harms affecting PI young adults, future studies should more closely examine the alcohol needs and problems of this vulnerable population using larger population-based samples via epidemiological approaches. Finally, although this survey study identified high levels of unmet treatment need in PI young adults, it did not explore the underlying factors driving this unmet need such as (a) cultural and community factors that prevent PIs from seeking formal treatment (e.g., stigma, confidentiality concerns, lack of treatment knowledge; Subica & Brown, 2020) and (b) systems-level factors such as poor availability and proximity of SUD services or lack of culturally responsive providers. Further in-depth qualitative research may now provide important insights into the key forces (e.g., cultural, community, service system) contributing to PI young adults’ high unmet treatment need, facilitating the design of effective interventions to better engage this high-risk population in care.

Conclusion

Considering the negative social and health impact of untreated hazardous drinking and AUDs, our findings of high levels of hazardous drinking, possible AUDs, and alcohol-related harms, yet low levels of perceived SUD treatment need, among U.S. PI young adults underscores the importance of (a) conducting larger-scale epidemiological surveys to clearly identify PIs’ patterns of alcohol and other substance use—such as rates of high-intensity versus heavy episodic drinking (Linden-Carmichael, Vasilenko, Lanza, & Maggs, 2017)—and better understand their treatment needs and risk for alcohol-related harms (e.g., violence, injury, cancer), and then (b) addressing this risk through the development of targeted alcohol-focused interventions. This may include designing culturally grounded prevention interventions (Okamoto et al., 2014) to prevent PI young adults from developing AUDs in the first place or creating culturally tailored approaches to encourage treatment engagement among PI young adults currently affected by AUDs. Through these culturally tailored prevention and intervention efforts, health professionals may start to alleviate the hidden alcohol burden in PI communities and improve health outcomes for this underserved and neglected racial population.

This project was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R21 AA026689). Li-Tzy Wu also has received research support from the National Institutes of Health (UG1DA040317, R01MD007658), Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, or any other funding entities.

ReferencesAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2011). Medical expenditure panel survey questionnaires. Rockville, MD: Author. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#QuestionnairesAlcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand. (1997). The place of alcohol in the lives of people from Tokelau, Fiji, Niue, Tonga, Cook Islands and Samoa living in New Zealand: An overview. ALAC Research Monograph Series, No. 2, Wellington, NZ: Author.Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand. (2003). Alcohol and other drugs: A training resource for educators of mental health support workers. Wellington, NZ: Author.AlvarezRA, VasquezE, MayorgaCC, FeasterDJ, & MitraniVB (2006). Increasing minority research participation through community organization outreach. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 28, 541–560. 10.1177/019394590628721516829637ArnettJJ (2005). The developmental context of substance use in emerging adulthood. Journal of Drug Issues, 35, 235–254. 10.1177/002204260503500202BachmanJG, WadsworthKN, O’MalleyPM, JohnstonLD, & SchulenbergJE (2013). Smoking, drinking, and drug use in young adulthood: The impacts of new freedoms and new responsibilities. New York, NY: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203763797BondySJ, & LangeP (2000). Measuring alcohol-related harm: test-retest reliability of a popular measure. Substance Use & Misuse, 35, 1263–1275.11349684Breland-NobleAM, & the AAKOMA Project Adult Advisory Board. (2012). Community and treatment engagement for depressed African American youth: The AAKOMA FLOA pilot. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 19, 41–48. 10.1007/s10880-011-9281-022354616BrewerRD, & SwahnMH (2005). Binge drinking and violence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294, 616–618. 10.1001/jama.294.5.61616077057BushK, KivlahanDR, McDonellMB, FihnSD, & BradleyKA (1998). The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): An effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158, 1789–1795. 10.1001/archinte.158.16.17899738608CauceAM, Domenech-RodríguezM, ParadiseM, CochranBN, SheaJM, SrebnikD, & BaydarN (2002). Cultural and contextual influences in mental health help seeking: A focus on ethnic minority youth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 44–55. 10.1037/0022-006X.70.U4411860055ChikritzhsTN, JonasHA, StockwellTR, HealePF, & DietzePM (2001). Mortality and life-years lost due to alcohol: A comparison of acute and chronic causes. The Medical Journal of Australia, 174, 281–284. 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2001.tb143269.x11297115CrabbeKM (1998). Etiology of depression among Native Hawai’ians. Pacific Health Dialog, 5, 341–345.DawsonDA, GrantBF, StinsonFS, & ZhouY (2005). Effectiveness of the derived Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) in screening for alcohol use disorders and risk drinking in the U.S. general population. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 844–854. 10.1097/01.ALC.0000164374.32229.A2DawsonDA, SmithSM, SahaTD, RubinskyAD, & GrantBF (2012). Comparative performance of the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM–IV and DSM–5 alcohol use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 126, 384–388. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.05.02922728044EhlersCL, StoufferGM, & GilderDA (2014). Associations between a history of binge drinking during adolescence and self-reported responses to alcohol in young adult Native and Mexican Americans. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38, 2039–2047. 10.1111/acer.12466EiraldiRB, MazzucaLB, ClarkeAT, & PowerTJ (2006). Service Utilization among ethnic minority children with ADHD: A model of help-seeking behavior. Administration and Policy in Mental Health Services Research, 33, 607–622. 10.1007/s10488-006-0063-1Empowering Pacific Islander Communities and Asian Americans Advancing Justice. (2014). Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders: A community of contrasts in California. Los Angeles, CA: Author.FalkDE, YiHY, & Hiller-SturmhöfelS (2006). An epidemiologic analysis of co-occurring alcohol and tobacco use and disorders: Findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Alcohol Research & Health, 29, 162–171.17373404FrankD, DeBenedettiAF, VolkRJ, WilliamsEC, KivlahanDR, & BradleyKA (2008). Effectiveness of the AUDIT-C as a screening test for alcohol misuse in three race/ethnic groups. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23, 781–787. 10.1007/s11606-008-0594-018421511FujiiH, NishimotoN, YamaguchiS, KuraiO, MiyanoM, UedaW, … OkawaK (2016). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for Consumption (AUDIT-C) is more useful than pre-existing laboratory tests for predicting hazardous drinking: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 16, 379. 10.1186/s12889-016-3053-627165437GiesbrechtN, & ThomasG (2010). A Complex Picture: Trends in alcohol consumption, harms and policy: Canada 1990–2010. NAT Nordisk alkohol & narkotikatidskrift, 27, 515–538. 10.1177/145507251002700507GoebertD, ParkC, & NishimuraS (2004). The co-occurrence of alcohol abuse in alcohol dependence among a treatment sample of Asian/Pacific Islanders. Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment, 61, 891–896.20563282GreenfieldTK, YeY, BondJ, KerrWC, NayakMB, KaskutasLA, … KranzlerHR (2014). Risks of alcohol use disorders related to drinking patterns in the U.S. general population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75, 319–327. 10.15288/jsad.2014.75.31924650826Harder and Company, Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, Health Services Research Center, University of Southern California School of Social Work. (2014). County of Los Angeles MHSA Innovations Program Annual Report. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health.Hawai’i State Epidemiological Outcomes Workgroup. (2018). 2018 state epidemiologic profile: Selected youth and adult alcohol indicators. Honolulu, HI: Author.HixsonLK, HeplerBB, & KimMO (2012). The Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander population: 2010. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.HowardJ, AliH, & RobinsL (2011). Alcohol, cannabis and amphetamine-type stimulants use among young Pacific Islanders. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 104–110. 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00272.x21219505HuakauJ, AsiasigaL, FordM, PledgerM, CasswellS, SuaaliiSauniT, & LimaI (2005). New Zealand Pacific peoples’ drinking style: Too much or nothing at all? [online]. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 118, U1491.15937526IBM Corporation. (2016). SPSS, (Version 24) [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: Author.KlingleRS, & MillerMD (1999). Hawaii student alcohol and drug use study. Honolulu, HI: State of Hawaii Department of Health, Alcohol, and Drug Abuse Division.Linden-CarmichaelAN, VasilenkoSA, LanzaST, & MaggsJL (2017). High-intensity drinking versus heavy episodic drinking: Prevalence rates and relative odds of alcohol use disorder across adulthood. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 41, 1754–1759. 10.1111/acer.13475MaggsJL, & SchulenbergJE (2005). Initiation and course of alcohol consumption among adolescents and young adults. In GalanterM, LowmanC, BoydGM, FadenVB, WittE, & LagressaD (Eds.), Recent developments in alcoholism (pp. 29–47). Boston, MA: Springer. 10.1007/0-306-48626-1_2MassonCL, ShopshireMS, SenS, HoffmanKA, HenglNS, BartolomeJ, … IguchiMY (2013). Possible barriers to enrollment in substance abuse treatment among a diverse sample of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders: Opinions of treatment clients. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44, 309–315. 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.08.00522985677MauMK, SinclairK, SaitoEP, BaumhoferKN, & KaholokulaJKA (2009). Cardiometabolic health disparities in native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders. Epidemiologic Reviews, 31, 113–129. 10.1093/ajerev/mxp00419531765MaysN, & PopeC (1995). Qualitative research: Observational methods in health care settings. British Medical Journal, 311, 182–184. 10.1136/bmj.311.6998.1827613435MenschBS, & KandelDB (1988). Underreporting of substance use in a national longitudinal youth cohort: Individual and interviewer effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 100–124. 10.1086/269084Ministry of Health. (2009). Alcohol use in New Zealand: Key results of the 2007/2008 New Zealand Alcohol and Drug Use Survey. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Health Information Service, Ministry of Health.NishimuraST, GoebertDA, Ramisetty-MiklerS, & CaetanoR (2005). Adolescent alcohol use and suicide indicators among adolescents in Hawaii. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 309–320. 10.1037/1099-9809.11.430916478351OkamotoSK, HelmS, PelS, McClainLL, HillAP, & HayashidaJK (2014). Developing empirically based, culturally grounded drug prevention interventions for indigenous youth populations. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 41, 8–19. 10.1007/s11414-012-9304-023188485Ramisetty-MiklerS, GoebertD, NishimuraS, & CaetanoR (2006). Dating violence victimization: Associated drinking and sexual risk behaviors of Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Caucasian high school students in Hawaii. The Journal of School Health, 76, 423–429. 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00136.x16978166RehmJ, TaylorB, & PatraJ (2006). Volume of alcohol consumption, patterns of drinking and burden of disease in the European region 2002. Addiction, 101, 1086–1095. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01491.x16869838RoereckeM, GreenfieldTK, KerrWC, BondyS, CohenJ, & RehmJ (2011). Heavy drinking occasions in relation to ischaemic heart disease mortality— An 11–22 year follow-up of the 1984 and 1995 U.S. National Alcohol Surveys. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 1401–1410. 10.1093/ije/dyr12922039198RoomR, BaborT, & RehmJ (2005). Alcohol and public health. The Lancet, 365, 519–530. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17870-2RoomR, BondySJ, & FerrisJ (1995). The risk of harm to oneself from drinking, Canada 1989. Addiction, 90, 499–513. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1995.tb02185.x7773113RubinskyAD, DawsonDA, WilliamsEC, KivlahanDR, & BradleyKA (2013). AUDIT-C scores as a scaled marker of mean daily drinking, alcohol use disorder severity, and probability of alcohol dependence in a U.S. general population sample of drinkers. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37, 1380–1390. 10.1111/acer.12092RubinskyAD, KivlahanDR, VolkRJ, MaynardC, & BradleyKA (2010). Estimating risk of alcohol dependence using alcohol screening scores. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 108, 29–36. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.00920042299SakaiJT, WangC, & PriceRK (2010). Substance use and dependence among Native Hawaiians, Other Pacific Islanders, and Asian ethnic groups in the United States: Contrasting multiple-race and singlerace prevalence rates from a national survey. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 9, 173–185. 10.1080/15332640.2010.50058220737344SchulenbergJE, JohnstonLD, O’MalleyPM, BachmanJG, MiechRA, & PatrickME (2017). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2016: Volume II, college students and adults ages 19–55. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.SubicaAM, AgarwalN, SullivanJG, & LinkBG (2017). Obesity and associated health disparities among understudied multiracial, Pacific Islander, and American Indian adults. Obesity, 25, 2128–2136. 10.1002/oby.2195429071803SubicaAM, AitaotoN, LinkBG, YamadaAM, HenwoodBF, & SullivanG (2019). Mental health status, need, and unmet need for mental health services among U.S. Pacific Islanders. Psychiatric Services, 70, 578–585. 10.1176/appi.ps.20180045530991907SubicaAM, AitaotoN, SullivanJG, HenwoodBF, YamadaAM, & LinkBG (2019). Mental illness stigma among Pacific Islanders. Psychiatry Research, 273, 578–585. 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.01.07730716597SubicaAM, & BrownBJ (2020). Addressing health disparities through deliberative methods: Citizens’ panels for health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 110, 166–173. 10.2105/AJPH.2019.30545031855474SubicaAM, & WuLT (2018). Substance use and suicide in Pacific Islander, American Indian, and multiracial youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 54, 795–805.29656915Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2013). Need for and receipt of substance use treatment among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Rockville, MD: Author.TeevaleT, RobinsonE, DuffyS, UtterJ, NosaV, ClarkT, … AmeratungaS (2012). Binge drinking and alcohol-related behaviours amongst Pacific youth: A national survey of secondary school students. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 125, 60–70.U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American Factfinder. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/WareJJr., KosinskiM, & KellerSD (1996). A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233. 10.1097/00005650-199603000-000038628042WhiteHR, McMorrisBJ, CatalanoRF, FlemingCB, HaggertyKP, & AbbottRD (2006). Increases in alcohol and marijuana use during the transition out of high school into emerging adulthood: The effects of leaving home, going to college, and high school protective factors. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 810–822. 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.81017060997WuLT, & BlazerDG (2015). Substance use disorders and comorbidities among Asian Americans and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders. Psychological Medicine, 45, 481–494. 10.1017/S003329171400133025066115

Characteristics and Descriptive Statistics for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) Participant Sample

VariableTotal sample N = 156
Men n = 94
Women n = 61
χ2 or t between women versus menp value
% n % n % n
Formal education
 <High school  19  29  20  19  1610
 High school  52  81  52  49  5232
 Some college  21  32  19  18  2314
 ≥College 5 8 4 4 7  4
Lifetime alcohol use  78121  85**  80  6741χ2(1, N = 155) = 6.92p < .01
Hazardous drinking (AUDIT-C ≥ 4 for men and ≥ 3 for women)  56  87  60  56  5131
Any AUD (AUDIT-C ≥ 4)  49  77  60**  56  3421χ2(1, N = 149) = 8.14p < .01
 Moderate AUD (AUDIT-C = 4) 8  12 9 8 7  4
 Severe AUD (AUDIT-C ≥ 5)  41  65  51**  48  2817χ2(1, N = 137) = 8.19p < .01
Lifetime cigarette use  53  82  63*  59  3823χ2(1, N = 153) = 10.55p < .05
Current cigarette use  52  81  63**  59  3823χ2(1, N = 141) = 12.44p < .01
Lifetime marijuana use  52  81  53  50  5131
Current marijuana use  49  77  43  41  2817
Alcohol-related harms
 Harm friendships  21  33  29**  27  10  6χ2(1, N = 152) = 7.56p < .01
 Harm health  22  34  24  23  1811
 Harm home life  11  17  14  13 7  4
 Harm work  21  32  24  23  15  9
 Harm finances  21  33  23  22  1811
Needed MH care (past year)  45  70  40  38  5232
 Avoided/Delayed MH care  30  47  32  30  2817
Needed SUD care (past year)  25  39  30  28  1811
 Avoided/Delayed SUD care  17  27  19  18  15  9
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Age23.704.2024.15  4.2922.963.98
AUDIT-C score  4.313.28  5.02**  3.28  3.232.99t(147) = 3.36p < .01
Marijuana days used (past 30)  4.518.81  6.70**10.65  4.698.48t(134) = 1.66p < .01
Health status
 Mental health47.209.8447.779.9646.679.43
 Physical health45.938.5145.608.4746.448.69

Note. AUD = alcohol use disorder; AUDIT-C = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Concise; MH = mental health; SUD = substance use disorder.

Significant difference at .05 level between male and female participants.

Significant difference at .01 level between male and female participants.

Logistic Regressions for Perceived Need for Mental Health Treatment in Past Year by Alcohol-Related Harms

DV = Perceived need for mental health treatment
VariableAOR95% CIAOR95% CIAOR95% CIAOR95% CIAOR95% CI
Social life
Physical health
Home life
Work/Studies
Finances
Alcohol-related harm2.15[0.78, 5.92]3.19*[1.20, 8.45]4.63*[1.05, 20.43]2.89*[1.04, 8.07]2.66[0.98, 7.22]
Controls
 Demographic
  Age1.03[0.93, 1.14]1.01[0.91, 1.12]1.02[0.92, 1.13]1.03[0.92, 1.14]1.02[0.92, 1.14]
 Sex (Ref: Women)
  Men0.55[0.23, 1.32]0.60[0.25, 1.42]0.51[0.21, 1.26]0.51[0.21, 1.24]0.55[0.23, 1.35]
 Formal education (Ref: < high school)
  High school0.69[0.23, 2.06]0.67[0.22, 2.08]0.67[0.18, 1.71]0.60[0.20, 1.82]0.65[0.22, 1.97]
  Some college0.29[0.07, 1.25]0.33[0.07, 1.43]0.23[0.05, 1.03]0.23[0.05, 1.02]0.24[0.06, 1.04]
  ≥College0.15[0.02, 1.13]0.15[0.02, 1.23]0.14[0.02, 1.03]0.13[0.02, 1.06]0.12*[0.02, 0.98]
 PI ethnicity (Ref: Marshallese)
  Samoan3.37*[1.13, 10.03]3.35*[1.13, 9.97]3.19*[1.07, 9.51]2.68[0.90, 7.95]3.14*[1.06, 9.33]
 Health status
  Mental health0.91*[0.87, 0.95]0.91*[0.86, 0.95]0.90*[0.86, 0.95]0.91*[0.96, 0.96]0.90*[0.86, 0.95]
  Physical health1.02[0.97, 1.07]1.01[0.96, 1.07]1.01[0.96, 1.06]1.00[0.95, 1.06]1.00[0.95, 1.06]
 Alcohol use disorder (Ref: No AUD)
  Possible AUD0.94[0.39, 2.28]1.07[0.43, 2.66]1.30[0.51, 3.31]1.09[0.44, 2.74]0.95[0.38, 2.34]

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; AUD = alcohol use disorder; CI = confidence interval; DV = dependent variable; Ref = reference group.

p < .05.

Logistic Regressions for Perceived Need for Substance Use Disorder Treatment in Past Year by Alcohol-Related Harms

DV = Perceived need for substance use disorder treatment
VariableAOR95% CIAOR95% CIAOR95% CIAOR95% CIAOR95% CI
Social life
Physical health
Home life
Work/Studies
Finances
Alcohol-related harm7.39*[2.64, 20.71]7.52*[2.74, 20.65]13.16*[3.13, 55.29]4.69*[1.74, 12.64]6.37*[2.28, 17.77]
Controls
 Demographic
  Age1.04[0.92, 1.17]0.99[0.87, 1.12]  0.99[0.88, 1.12]1.01[0.90, 1.13]1.00[0.89, 1.13]
 Sex (Ref: Women)
  Men1.61[0.58, 4.49]2.42[0.85, 6.89]  2.04[0.73, 5.70]1.92[0.71, 5.16]2.43[0.85, 6.89]
 Formal education (Ref: < high school)
  High school0.64[0.18, 2.25]0.67[0.18, 2.51]  0.52[0.15, 1.75]0.61[0.19, 2.00]0.72[0.21, 2.51]
  Some college0.23[0.04, 1.47]0.28[0.04, 1.78]  0.16[0.02, 1.08]0.17[0.03, 1.05]0.18[0.03, 1.10]
  ≥College0.85[0.11, 6.85]0.80[0.09, 7.13]  1.02[0.13, 7.95]0.81[0.10, 6.70]0.73[0.09, 5.93]
 PI ethnicity (Ref: Marshallese)
  Samoan2.51[0.74, 8.57]2.30[0.69, 7.67]  2.04[0.63, 6.57]1.51[0.48, 4.73]2.14[0.68, 6.78]
 Health status
  Mental health0.95*[0.90, 1.00]0.94*[0.89, 0.99]  0.93*[0.89, 0.98]0.95*[0.90, 0.99]0.94[0.89, 0.99]
  Physical health0.99[0.93, 1.05]0.98[0.92, 1.04]  0.98[0.92, 1.03]0.97[0.02, 1.03]0.97[0.91, 1.03]
 Alcohol use disorder (Ref: No AUD)
  Possible AUD1.48[0.53, 4.11]1.92[0.67, 5.49]  2.95[0.99, 8.79]1.94[0.73, 5.19]1.56[0.57, 4.30]

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; AUD = alcohol use disorder; CI = confidence interval; DV = dependent variable; Ref = reference group.

p < .05.

Public Policy Relevance Statement

We know little about the scope of alcohol use, hazardous drinking, and treatment need among Pacific Islanders young adults, who are hypothesized to carry high risk for alcohol use problems partially because of their exposure to extensive U.S. colonization and historical traumatization. As expected, screened prevalence of hazardous drinking, possible alcohol use disorders, and significant alcohol-related harms were exceedingly high among Pacific Islander young adults, yet perceived need for substance use treatment was low. Our findings are among the first to empirically confirm the heavy burden of alcohol use disorders and harm affecting understudied Pacific Islander young adults and support the need for designing tailored interventions to reduce their alcohol misuse and increase their engagement in treatment.