| Literature DB >> 21197100 |
Sherry H Stewart1, Simon B Sherry, M Nancy Comeau, Christopher J Mushquash, Pamela Collins, Hendricus Van Wilgenburg.
Abstract
Canadian Aboriginal youth show high rates of excessive drinking, hopelessness, and depressive symptoms. We propose that Aboriginal adolescents with higher levels of hopelessness are more susceptible to depressive symptoms, which in turn predispose them to drinking to cope-which ultimately puts them at risk for excessive drinking. Adolescent drinkers (n = 551; 52% boys; mean age = 15.9 years) from 10 Canadian schools completed a survey consisting of the substance use risk profile scale (hopelessness), the brief symptom inventory (depressive symptoms), the drinking motives questionnaire-revised (drinking to cope), and quantity, frequency, and binge measures of excessive drinking. Structural equation modeling demonstrated the excellent fit of a model linking hopelessness to excessive drinking indirectly via depressive symptoms and drinking to cope. Bootstrapping indicated that this indirect effect was significant. Both depressive symptoms and drinking to cope should be intervention targets to prevent/decrease excessive drinking among Aboriginal youth high in hopelessness.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21197100 PMCID: PMC3003989 DOI: 10.1155/2011/970169
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Depress Res Treat ISSN: 2090-1321
Figure 1The hypothesized structural model. Rectangles represent manifest variables; ovals represent latent variables. Black arrows represent hypothesized direct effects; grey arrows represent paths hypothesized to be explained by indirect effects. Quantity = drinking quantity; Frequency = drinking frequency; Binge = binge drinking.
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between study measures.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Hopelessness | — | 14.1 (4.0) | |||||
| (2) Depressive symptoms | .42** | — | 7.4 (5.9) | ||||
| (3) Drinking to cope | .26** | .39** | — | 2.1 (0.9) | |||
| (4) Drinking quantity | .12** | .02 | .25** | — | 3.4 (1.4) | ||
| (5) Drinking frequency | .14** | .13** | .30** | .49** | — | 2.7 (1.1) | |
| (6) Binge frinking | .13** | .10* | .30** | .56** | .73** | — | 2.8 (1.0) |
Note. Sample sizes vary from 486 to 531 due to missing data on various study measures.*P < .05. **P < .01.
Figure 2The hypothesized structural model. Rectangles represent manifest variables; ovals represent latent variables. Black arrows represent significant paths (i.e., P < .05). Grey arrows represent nonsignificant paths (i.e., P > .05). Path coefficients are standardized. Quantity = drinking quantity; Frequency = drinking frequency; Binge = binge drinking.
Bootstrap analyses of hypothesized indirect effects.
| Bootstrap estimates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesized Indirect effect | Unstandardized indirect effect | Standardized indirect effect | SE for standardized indirect effect | 95% confidence interval |
| Hopelessness to drinking to cope | .167 | .143 | .025 | .094, .192* |
| Depressive symptoms to excessive | .019 | .123 | .025 | .074, .173* |
| Hopelessness to excessive | .013 | .059 | .029 | .002, .116* |
Note. SE = bias-corrected standard error. aindirect effect is based on all indirect paths. *Confidence intervals excluding zero are significant at P < .05.