Studies of youth and the schools population

Overview of the data | Tables | Graphics | Supplementary downloadable tables | Methods and definitions

Overview of the data

The links above give access to the tables in the bulletin, the supplementary downloadable tables and the associated graphics in the section dealing with epidemiological studies among youth, as well as to a description of the methods and definitions used in compiling this data. A brief overview is provided below. See also the side navigation bar for links to all chapters.

Summary points

Cannabis

When viewing prevalence estimates through the three different observational time windows (LTP, LYP and LMP) there are considerable country variations between these prevalence patterns (Figure EYE-1 part (i), Table EYE-5 part (i)).
Since 1995 there has been a consistent increase in number of school students across the EU that have ever tried cannabis (Figure EYE-1 part (ii), Figure EYE-1 part (ix), Table EYE-5 part (i)).
In 2003 more male school students than female students report having used cannabis 40 or more times in their lifetimes. This gender difference is not as marked but still observable for lifetime prevalence (Figure EYE-1 part (iii), Table EYE-2 part (i) and (ii)).
Eleven Member States and Bulgaria surveyed older age students (17 to 18 years old) in their national school surveys and, with only one exception, prevalence estimates for ever in lifetime prevalence (LTP) and current use (LMP) of cannabis among these older students are consistently higher than those for 15 to 16 year olds (Figure EYE-1 part (iv), Table EYE-3).
LTP cannabis is associated with perceptions of risk at the general school student population level. The relationship is an inverse one where, when perception of risk is high, prevalence is low (Figure EYE-1 part (v)).
LTP for cannabis is associated with perceptions about availability. Although perceptions about easy availability of cannabis reach considerably higher levels than estimates of use (Figure EYE-1 part (vi), Table EYE-2 part (i) and (ii), Table EYE-5 part (i) and (ii)).
Since 1995, in 12 EU countries there has been an increase (between 1 % and 5 %) in school students who reported having tried cannabis when they were aged 13 years or under. Only in the Netherlands and the UK has there been a small decrease (of 1 %) (Figure EYE-1 part (vii), Table EYE-5 part (ii)).
Most countries that report above average estimates for ever in lifetime use of cannabis also report above average estimates for 'binge' drinking (measured by drinking 5 or more drinks in a row during the last 30 days). France and Italy are exceptions where above average cannabis use is associated with lower than average binge drinking measures (Figure EYE-1 part (viii)).

Other drugs

Prevalence estimates for ecstasy exceed those for amphetamine in 14 of the EU and candidate countries that participated in the 2003 ESPAD surveys of 15 to 16 year old school students (Figure EYE-2 part (vi), Table EYE-1).
Since 1995 the greater increases in LTP for ecstasy occurred mostly in the new Central and Eastern European Member States. Decreases took place in Ireland and the UK before 1999 and LTP has remained more stable since then (Figure EYE-2 part (i), Table EYE-4).
Perceptions of risk for ecstasy and cocaine show no clear correlation with lifetime prevalence rates. This is likely to be due to relatively low figures reporting use (Figure EYE-2 part (ii), Figure EYE-2 part (iv)).
Prevalence estimates for lifetime use of ‘magic mushrooms’ among 15 to 16 year old school students exceeded or equalled those for LSD or other hallucinogenic drugs in more than half of the countries that participated in the 2003 ESPAD survey (Figure EYE-2 part (v)).
In 2003 prevalence of estimates for lifetime use of ‘magic mushrooms’ among 15/16 year old school students was greater than or equalled that for ecstasy in several Member States (Figure EYE-2 part (v)).
Prevalence of drinking 5+ alcoholic drinks in a row is associated with perceptions of risk at the general school student population level. The relationship is an inverted one where, when perception of risk is high, prevalence is low (Figure EYE-2 part (iii)).