Cited by 117Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 29 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Prevalence and correlates of benzodiazepine use, misuse, and use disorders among adults in the United States.

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although benzodiazepine misuse and use disorders are associated with adverse health effects, it is unknown what proportion of benzodiazepine users misuse them or meet criteria for benzodiazepine use disorders. The goal of this study was to examine the prevalence and correlates of benzodiazepine use, misuse, and use disorders among US adults. METHODS: Data from 102,000 adults 18 years and older who participated in the 2015-2016 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health were used. IMS Health Total Patient Tracker data were also examined. Descriptive analyses and multinomial logistic regressions were applied. RESULTS: Among US adults in 2015-2016, 12.5% (annual average, 95% CI, 12.19%-12.81%) used benzodiazepines, 2.1% (95% CI, 2.03%-2.25%) misused benzodiazepines at least once, and 0.2% (95% CI, 0.15%-0.22%) had benzodiazepine use disorders. Among benzodiazepine users, 17.1% (95% CI, 16.30%-17.93%) misused benzodiazepines, and 1.5% (95% CI, 1.26%-1.72%) had benzodiazepine use disorders. Benzodiazepine use was associated with emergency room visits, suicidal ideation, use of most substances, and mental disorders. Benzodiazepine misuse without use disorders was associated with younger age, male sex, being black, poor educational attainment, being uninsured and unemployed, being single, having family income below $50,000, and having suicidal ideation and other specific substance use problems. Correlates of benzodiazepine use disorders were similar, but most correlates were associated with benzodiazepine use disorders more strongly than with misuse without use disorders. CONCLUSIONS: While benzodiazepine use is highly prevalent among US adults, benzodiazepine use disorders are relatively rare among benzodiazepine users. Our results help characterize benzodiazepine users and identify adults at risk for misuse and use disorders.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.18m12174

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

58 Own result · 16 Not checked yet · 8 Own interpretation · 6 Own method · 1 No basis given

Verify all 29 references — free account

Show all 71 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 8
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 11
18 of 18
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Retail pharmacy data do not include adults obtaining benzodiazepines from hospitals, clinics, and other non-retail settings.

    “Because retail pharmacy data do not include adults obtaining benzodiazepines from hospitals, clinics, and other non-retail settings”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    NSDUH provides nationally representative data on benzodiazepine use, misuse, and motivations among the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population.

    “providing the first opportunity to obtain nationally representative data on benzodiazepine use, misuse, and motivations for benzodiazepine misuse among the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population aged 12 or older.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 2015–2016 NSDUH sample of 102,000 adults is representative of U.S. adults.

    “Based on the 102,000 sampled adults from the 2015–2016 NSDUH”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    IMSHealth Total Patient Tracker data accurately count unique adults dispensed benzodiazepines in outpatient retail pharmacies in 2015.

    “IMSHealth Total Patient Tracker to assess the number of unique adults who were dispensed benzodiazepines in outpatient retail pharmacies in 2015.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 117

Metadata

Authors
Blanco, C., Han, B., Jones, C. M., Johnson, K., & Compton, W. M.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
2018-10-16
Volume
79
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-2101
OpenAlex
W2897046664
Cited by
117
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (Z99 DA999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
benzodiazepines, benzodiazepine misuse, benzodiazepine use disorder, prevalence, suicidal ideation, emergency department visits, substance use, mental illness, socioeconomic factors, health insurance status, National Survey on Drug Use and Health
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Benzodiazepines, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Logistic Models, Substance-Related Disorders, Young Adult, Prescription Drug Misuse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review