Understanding the ecological context of mental, emotional, and behavioral health problems: A person‐centered approach

Abstract

Aims: The social/environmental context of youth is important for mental, emotional, and behavioral (MEB) health. This study used person‐oriented methods to examine the influences of family, neighborhood, and poverty on late adolescent MEB outcomes. Methods: Latent class analysis was used to discern significant clusters of at‐risk, diverse young men (N = 625) based on contextual factors; differences in MEB outcomes were examined. Results: Four classes emerged. Resourced and Protected youth had low risk across all indicators. Non‐resourced and Protected youth lived in poverty, poor neighborhoods, but had good parenting; despite low delinquency, substance use was elevated. Resourced but High Risk youth had negative parenting but good neighborhoods. Outcomes included elevated delinquency and mental health problems. Non‐resourced and High Risk youth were poor, lived in bad neighborhoods, and experienced abusive parenting; MEB outcomes were poor. Conclusion: Findings confirm the unique effects that negative parenting, neighborhoods, and poverty have on adolescent development. Implications are discussed.

Adolescent Mental Health Resilience and Combinations of Caregiver Monitoring and Warmth: A Person-centred Perspective

“…Given that both profiles included almost average levels of monitoring, the level of caregiver warmth appears to be especially crucial to adolescent mental health. This aligns, to some extent, with pre-existing studies that have reported that higher caregiver warmth is associated with better adolescent outcomes (Baumrind, 2005;Logan et al, 2019;Rothenberg et al, 2020a, b, c), also in South African samples of HIV-infected or -affected adolescents (Bhana et al, 2016;Boyes et al, 2019;Casale et al, 2015;Sharer et al, 2015;Shenderovich et al, 2021). Still, none of these prior studies investigated warmth and monitoring combinations and their complex relationships with the mental health of younger and older male and female adolescents.…”

“…Still, caregiver warmth was above average in the second profile (Substantial Caregiver Warmth and Some Monitoring profile), and it was higher than caregiver monitoring. The fact that most of the sample (i.e., 83.61%) reported above average levels of caregiver warmth discourages a priori assumptions that warm caregiving is unlikely in disadvantaged communities (Logan et al, 2019). Instead, it urges attention to the resilience of these stress-exposed caregivers, with special emphasis on better understanding and better supporting the resources that informed their continued capacity to parent positively.…”

“…A follow-up study with these same children when they were age 15, showed that high caregiver control/monitoring and low warmth were associated with the least positive developmental outcomes (Baumrind, 2005). Subsequent studies confirmed that greater caregiver warmth and moderate monitoring were associated with better child and adolescent mental health (Lansford et al, 2018;Logan et al, 2019;Pinquart, 2017;Rothenberg et al, 2020a, b, c;Shuey & Leventhal, 2019). North American children were typically represented in these studies, but Lansford et al, 2018 andcolleagues (2020a, b, c) also included children aged 8 to 13 from China, Colombia, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, the Philippines, Sweden, and Thailand.…”

“…For instance, young men from disadvantaged American neighbourhoods reported better mental health outcomes when they experienced high levels of supportive parenting and moderate monitoring. Those who reported a combination of low supportive parenting, low monitoring and considerable abusive caregiving reported poorer mental health (Logan et al, 2019).…”

“…In summary, the evidence of associations between caregiver warmth and/or monitoring and adolescent mental health in South Africa is largely limited to studies with HIV-infected or -affected adolescents (generally younger than 18), and mostly excludes symptoms of externalising difficulties, such as conduct problems. Whereas resilienceenabling parenting typically combines positive parenting behaviours (Logan et al, 2019;Masten, 2014;Masten & Palmer, 2019), the above-mentioned SA studies have also not considered the effects of varied combinations of warmth and monitoring. They preferred variable-centred approaches that assume some degree of homogeneity and are not optimally suited to identifying complex or unique relationships between variables of interest (Meyer & Morin, 2016).…”