| Literature DB >> 28009806 |
Joanna Mazur1, Izabela Tabak2, Anna Dzielska3, Krzysztof Wąż4, Anna Oblacińska5.
Abstract
Predictors of high-risk patterns of substance use are often analysed in relation to demographic and school-related factors. The interaction between these factors and the additional impact of family wealth are still new areas of research. The aim of this study was to find determinants of the most common patterns of psychoactive substance use in mid-adolescence, compared to non-users. A sample of 1202 Polish students (46.1% boys, mean age of 15.6 years) was surveyed in 2013/2014. Four patterns of psychoactive substance use were defined using cluster analysis: non-users-71.9%, mainly tobacco and alcohol users-13.7%, high alcohol and cannabis users-7.2%, poly-users-7.2%. The final model contained the main effects of gender and age, and one three-way (perceived academic achievement × gender × family affluence) interaction. Girls with poor perception of school performance (as compared to girls with better achievements) were at significantly higher risk of being poly-users, in both less and more affluent families (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 5.55 and OR = 3.60, respectively). The impact of family affluence was revealed only in interaction with other factors. Patterns of substance use in mid-adolescence are strongly related to perceived academic achievements, and these interact with selected socio-demographic factors.Entities:
Keywords: adolescence; multiple substance use; perceived academic achievement; socioeconomic determinants; urban-rural differences
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28009806 PMCID: PMC5201405 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13121264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Patterns of psychoactive substances use in order to their prevalence in population.
| Cluster Description | % | Mean No. of Substances | Mean No. of Days in Last 30 Days * | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tobacco | Alcohol | Cannabis | ||||
| 1. Non-users | 864 | 71.9 | 0.26 ± 0.44 | 0.04 ± 0.24 | 0.34 ± 0.63 | 0.05 ± 1.05 |
| 2. Mainly tobacco and alcohol | 165 | 13.7 | 1.82 ± 0.39 | 13.94 ± 11.59 | 4.11 ± 5.89 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 3. High alcohol and cannabis | 87 | 7.2 | 1.36 ± 0.55 | 0.05 ± 0.28 | 9.26 ± 8.82 | 3.16 ± 8.23 |
| 4. Poly-users | 86 | 7.2 | 2.88 ± 0.32 | 20.12 ± 10.93 | 7.54 ± 9.00 | 8.98 ± 10.40 |
| Total | 1202 | 100.0 | 0.74 ± 0.93 | 3.39 ± 8.43 | 2.02 ± 4.99 | 0.91 ± 4.36 |
* Days of substance use estimated on the basis of seven original response categories.
Socio-demographic characteristics of the clusters * (%).
| Independent Variable | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||||
| Boys | 551 | 71.8 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 8.2 | <0.001 |
| Girls | 651 | 71.9 | 16.9 | 4.9 | 6.3 | |
| Grade | ||||||
| 9th | 1045 | 72.9 | 12.7 | 7.0 | 7.4 | 0.04 |
| 10th | 157 | 65.0 | 20.4 | 8.9 | 5.7 | |
| Perceived academic achievement (AA) | ||||||
| Average or below | 623 | 64.2 | 18.9 | 8.2 | 8.7 | |
| Good | 393 | 81.4 | 7.4 | 6.9 | 4.3 | <0.001 |
| Very good | 162 | 79.1 | 8.0 | 4.9 | 8.0 | |
| Residence location | ||||||
| Rural areas | 390 | 74.3 | 11.3 | 8.2 | 6.2 | |
| Small towns | 367 | 68.7 | 16.9 | 6.5 | 7.9 | 0.32 |
| Large cities | 445 | 72.4 | 13.2 | 7.0 | 7.4 | |
| Family affluence (FAS) | ||||||
| Low | 200 | 72.0 | 12.5 | 6.5 | 9.0 | |
| Average | 743 | 72.9 | 13.3 | 6.5 | 7.3 | 0.37 |
| High | 200 | 70.0 | 14.5 | 10.5 | 5.0 | |
| Local areas perception (LAP) | ||||||
| Low | 194 | 66.5 | 14.4 | 9.3 | 9.8 | |
| Average | 714 | 73.7 | 13.6 | 6.0 | 6.7 | 0.07 |
| High | 187 | 72.2 | 11.8 | 11.2 | 4.8 | |
* Description of clusters as in Table 1.
Figure 1Non-users cluster (% with 95% confidence interval) by gender, perceived academic achievement (AA) and residence location.
Multivariable estimates from the final multinomial logistic regression * with only main effects.
| Main Effect of | Referent Group | Cluster 2 Mainly Tobacco and Alcohol | Cluster 3 High Alcohol and Cannabis | Cluster 4 Poly-Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||||
| Gender (boys) | Girls | 0.67 | 0.46 | 0.98 | 1.31 | 0.81 | 2.13 | |||
| Grade (10th) | 9th | 1.45 | 0.75 | 2.80 | 1.03 | 0.49 | 2.16 | |||
| Poor perceived academic achievements | at least good | |||||||||
| Rural resident | urban | 0.75 | 0.50 | 1.12 | 1.10 | 0.68 | 1.80 | 0.60 | 0.34 | 1.05 |
| Low family affluence | average or high | 0.90 | 0.56 | 1.45 | 0.84 | 0.45 | 1.58 | 1.19 | 0.66 | 2.14 |
| Low local area status | average or high | 1.20 | 0.75 | 1.91 | 1.48 | 0.84 | 2.61 | 1.64 | 0.92 | 2.90 |
* Reference category Cluster 1—non-users; results significant at p < 0.05 are bolded; OR—adjusted odds ratio; CI—confidence interval.
Interaction effect estimates from the alternative multinomial logistic regression * with main effects (age, gender) and three-way interaction (perceived academic achievement × gender × FAS).
| Gender and Family Affluence (FAS) Level in the Interaction | Cluster 2 Mainly Tobacco and Alcohol | Cluster 3 High Alcohol and Cannabis | Cluster 4 Poly-Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | ||||
| Boys × Low FAS | 2.06 | 0.82 | 5.21 | 1.47 | 0.61 | 3.56 | 0.59 | 0.13 | 2.73 |
| Boys × Average or high FAS | 1.61 | 0.81 | 3.20 | 1.06 | 0.56 | 2.01 | 1.72 | 0.83 | 3.53 |
| Girls × Low FAS | 2.41 | 0.98 | 5.95 | 2.19 | 0.66 | 7.35 | |||
| Girls × Average or high FAS | 2.17 | 0.96 | 4.91 | ||||||
* FAS—family affluence; reference category Cluster 1—non-users; results significant at p < 0.05 are bolded; OR—adjusted odds ratio; CI—confidence interval; OR associated with poor perception of school achievements.