Risk and protective factors for adolescents’ illicit drug use: A population-based study

Abstract

Objective: The use of illicit drugs by adolescents is a widespread problem in Taiwan. The aim of this study was to identify risk and protective factors. Design: Web-based survey of high school students. Setting: Senior high schools and vocational high schools in northern Taiwan. Method: Survey data were collected from 15,754 students. Logistic regression analysis examined potential risk and protective factors in individual, family and peer/school domains for lifetime, past-year and past-month illicit drug use and the single and/or multiple use of ketamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and marijuana. Results: The prevalence rates of illicit drug use varied from 1.18% to 2.19% by frequency and type of illicit drug use. Perceived availability of illicit drugs, betel nut chewing, drug use by a family member, peer drug use, missing classes and type of school were significant risk factors in lifetime, past-year and past-month use. Sensation seeking, family member and peer drug use were common factors in ketamine, methamphetamine, MDMA and marijuana use. Drug use by a family member increased the risk of multiple drug use. Smoking was a risk factor for ketamine use. Drug-related knowledge was a protective factor. Conclusions: These findings support the idea that there exist multilevel risk and protective factors for drug use, especially in the family and peer/school domains. School-based interventions should be designed to integrate different levels of risk and protective factors.

Perspectives Emerged from Students and Supervisory Staff Interaction in Drug Use Prevention: A Q Methodology Investigation

“…An earlier study revealed that adult perceptions influenced their practices of mentoring [ 44 ]. The perspectives of some staff, who loaded onto groups 1 and 4, were in line with earlier research in that peer influences were one of the most significant contributors to drug use among adolescents [ 6 , 45 , 46 ]. These staff emphasized external influences during supervision, whereas others prioritized internal influence.…”

“…Designated Q statements were provided to address the raised issues related to drug use prevention during supervisory interactions. The statement sentences were developed according to a literature review [ 6 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ] and experiences of youth counsellors. The research team discussed the draft statements with two senior youth counsellors; both worked with students of drug use problem for more than 10 years.…”

“…The research team discussed the draft statements with two senior youth counsellors; both worked with students of drug use problem for more than 10 years. After several group discussions, the statements were categorized as follows: strengthen information with personal relevance [ 6 , 36 , 37 , 38 ], health consequences of drug use [ 30 , 32 , 33 ], overcome barriers to change [ 6 , 28 , 33 , 34 , 35 ], development of preventive strategies [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ], and supportive relationships [ 29 , 35 , 39 ]. The statements were later reviewed by three health professionals with expertise on drug use to ensure their appropriateness.…”

“…The adolescents who exhibit more knowledge about and positive attitudes toward drug use prevention are more likely to avoid drug use [ 6 , 7 ]. Therefore, providing tailored skills and responsive strategies to help adolescents handle possible situations of drug use can effectively decrease the risks of drug use [ 8 , 9 ].…”

Integrating Health Literacy into a Theory-Based Drug-Use Prevention Program: A Quasi-Experimental Study Among Junior High Students in Taiwan.

“…Drug use has been a critical health problem among students over the past decade. Prevalence rates for lifetime, past-year, and past-month illegal drug use were 2.79%, 1.91%, and 1.72%, respectively, for 15,754 senior and vocational high school students in Taiwan [1]. A national campus survey in 2017 showed drug-use prevalence at 0.23% for junior high school students and 0.73% for senior high school students [2].…”