Individual and Contextual Predictors of Inhalant Use among 8th Graders: A Multilevel Analysis

Collins, David; Pan, Zhenfeng; Johnson, Knowlton; Courser, Matthew; Shamblen, Steve

doi:10.2190/de.38.3.a

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All of the R&PF examined significantly predicted each of our substance use outcomes in the expected direction for the youth sample; results which have been found elsewhere with this population (Collins, Pan, Johnson, Courser, & Shamblen, 2008;Derzon, 2007). The current findings show further support for prevention efforts to focus on R&PF, especially for the age group of 11-18 years.…”

Section: Randpf That Predict Substance Use Among Youth and Young Adultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Influence of Risk and Protective Factors on Substance Use Outcomes Across Developmental Periods: A Comparison of Youth and Young Adults

Abadi

Shamblen

Thompson

et al. 2011

Substance Use & Misuse

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data were collected from samples of youth (ages 11-18; N = 38,268) and young 10 adults (ages 18-24; N = 602) across 30 Tennessee counties using surveys and telephone interviews conducted in 2006-2008. Data were analyzed using hierarchical nonlinear modeling to determine: (1) which risk and protective factors predicted alcohol and marijuana use, and (2) whether predictors differed as a function of developmental period. Findings provide preliminary evidence that prevention efforts need to take into consideration the changing environment and related influences as youth age, especially as they move from a more protected community environment to one where they live somewhat independently. Implications and limitations are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Randpf That Predict Substance Use Among Youth and Young Adultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Influence of Risk and Protective Factors on Substance Use Outcomes Across Developmental Periods: A Comparison of Youth and Young Adults

Abadi

Shamblen

Thompson

et al. 2011

Substance Use & Misuse

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…72,75 Of the other studies: 82 both drew on National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) data, but the latter used data from more follow-ups. Ishibashi 83 and Murnaghan et al 84 both drew on data from the School Health Action Planning and Evaluation System (SHAPES) study, but used different waves to examine different outcomes.…”

Section: Adjustments For Appropriate Covariatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies 72,80,135 suffered from problems of reporting caused by the use of determinants whose scale of measurement was several orders of magnitude larger than that of the outcome. In these cases, even when significant associations were estimated, the reported coefficients (and any corresponding ORs) were of no practical use because they were correspondingly very small.…”

Section: Poor Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine studies 65,72,76,81,82,86,130,137 involved longitudinal designs with repeated measurements of young people being made over time. In most cases sample attrition was relatively low, but in Tobler et al…”

Section: Longitudinal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reported ICCs were generally quite low, with most falling in the range of 0-10%, indicating that most of the variation in outcome measures was due to variability at the student level as opposed to the school level. 72 reported that marijuana use was more clustered than other drug use; Haley 77 reported that drinking among same-sex-attracted students was more clustered than fighting; Kim 81 reported that clustering for alcohol use was higher than that for smoking; and Ma 135 reported that clustering was greatest for exercise but lower for healthy eating and even lower for mental health. However, these findings from single studies cannot provide a clear sense of underlying patterns of clustering for these outcomes.…”

Section: Narrative Summaries Of Intracluster Correlation Coefficientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic review of the effects of schools and school environment interventions on health: evidence mapping and synthesis

Bonell

Jamal

Harden

et al. 2013

Public Health Research

159

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn contrast to curriculum-based health education interventions in schools, the school environment approach promotes health by modifying schools' physical/social environment. This systematic review reports on the health effects of the school environment and processes by which these might occur. It includes theories, intervention outcome and process evaluations, quantitative studies and qualitative studies.Research questionsResearch question (RQ)1: What theories are used to inform school environment interventions or explain school-level health influences? What testable hypotheses are suggested? RQ2: What are the effects on student health/inequalities of school environment interventions addressing organisation/management; teaching/pastoral care/discipline; and the physical environment? What are the costs? RQ3: How feasible/acceptable and context dependent are such interventions? RQ4: What are the effects on student health/inequalities of school-level measures of organisation/management; teaching/pastoral care/discipline; and the physical environment? RQ5: Through what processes might such influences occur?Data sourcesA total of 16 databases were searched between 30 July 2010 and 23 September 2010 to identify relevant studies, including the British Educational Index, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Health Management Information Consortium, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. In addition, references of included studies were checked and authors contacted.Review methodsIn stage 1, we mapped references concerning how the school environment affects health and consulted stakeholders to identify stage 2 priorities. In stage 2, we undertook five reviews corresponding to our RQs.ResultsStage 1: A total of 82,775 references were retrieved and 1144 were descriptively mapped. Stage 2: A total of 24 theories were identified (RQ1). The human functioning and school organisation, social capital and social development theories were judged most useful. Ten outcome evaluations were included (RQ2). Four US randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one UK quasi-experimental study examined interventions building school community/relationships. Studies reported benefits for some, but not all outcomes (e.g. aggression, conflict resolution, emotional health). Two US RCTs assessed interventions empowering students to contribute to modifying food/physical activity environments, reporting benefits for physical activity but not for diet. Three UK quasi-experimental evaluations examined playground improvements, reporting mixed findings, with benefits being greater for younger children and longer break times. Six process evaluations (RQ3) reported positively. One study suggested that implementation was facilitated when this built on existing ethos and when senior staff were supportive. We reviewed 42 multilevel studies, confining narrative synthesis to 10 that appropriately adjusted for confounders. Four UK/US reports suggested that schools with higher value-added attainment/attendance had lower rates of substance use and fighting. Three reports from different countries examined school policies on smoking/alcohol, with mixed results. One US study found that schools with more unobservable/unsupervised places reported increased substance use. Another US study reported that school size, age structure and staffing ratio did not correlate with student drinking. Twenty-one qualitative reports from different countries (RQ5) suggested that disengagement, lack of safety and lack of participation in decisions may predispose students to engage in health risks.LimitationsWe found no evidence regarding health inequalities or cost, and could not undertake meta-analysis.ConclusionsThere is non-definitive evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of school environment interventions involving community/relationship building, empowering student participation in modifying schools' food/physical activity environments, and playground improvements. Multilevel studies suggest that schools that add value educationally may promote student health. Qualitative studies suggest pathways underlying these effects. This evidence lends broad support to theories of social development, social capital and human functioning and school organisation. Further trials to examine the effects of school environment modifications on student health are recommended.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

show abstract

When to Intervene: Elementary School, Middle School or Both? Effects of keepin’ It REAL on Substance Use Trajectories of Mexican Heritage Youth

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the findings of a study exploring two questions: What age is most efficacious to expose Mexican heritage youth to drug abuse prevention interventions, and what dosage of the prevention intervention is needed? These issues are relevant to Mexican heritage youth-many from immigrant families-in particular ways due to the acculturation process and other contextual factors. The study utilized growth curve modeling to investigate the trajectory of recent substance use (alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, inhalants) among Mexican heritage students (N = 1,670) participating in the keepin' it REAL drug prevention program at different developmental periods: the elementary school (5th grade), middle school (7th grade), or both. The findings provide no evidence that intervening only in elementary school was effective in altering substance use trajectories from 5th to 8th grade, either for licit nor illicit substances. Implementing keepin' it REAL in middle school alone altered the trajectories of use of all four substances for Mexican heritage youth. A double dose of prevention, in elementary and middle school proved to be equally as effective as intervening in 7th grade only, and only for marijuana and inhalants. The decrease in use of marijuana and inhalants among students in the 7th-grade-only or the 5th-and 7th-grade interventions occurred just after students received the curriculum intervention in 7th grade. These results are interpreted from an ecodevelopmental and culturally specific perspective and recommendations for prevention and future research are discussed.

show abstract

Individual and Contextual Predictors of Inhalant Use among 8th Graders: A Multilevel Analysis

Cited by 11 publications

References 25 publications

Influence of Risk and Protective Factors on Substance Use Outcomes Across Developmental Periods: A Comparison of Youth and Young Adults

Influence of Risk and Protective Factors on Substance Use Outcomes Across Developmental Periods: A Comparison of Youth and Young Adults

Systematic review of the effects of schools and school environment interventions on health: evidence mapping and synthesis

When to Intervene: Elementary School, Middle School or Both? Effects of keepin’ It REAL on Substance Use Trajectories of Mexican Heritage Youth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About