| Literature DB >> 30134531 |
Enedina Quiroga1, Arrate Pinto-Carral2, Isaías García3, Antonio J Molina4, Tania Fernández-Villa5, Vicente Martín6.
Abstract
In adolescence, friends are important due to their influence on the acquisition of habits such as alcohol consumption. However, there is a lack of studies that describe the structural context of adolescents, which would be useful to implement prevention strategies. Therefore, our research question was how adolescent friendship networks influence alcohol consumption. Our goal was to determine the structural profile of adolescent at-risk alcohol users and their relational context in the classroom. We designed a descriptive cross-sectional study based on social network analysis to analyze structural patterns. We recruited 195 students. Social-network and alcohol-consumption variables were analyzed using the UCINET and STATA programs. Some 86.67% of participants had consumed alcohol at some time in their lives and the prevalence of at-risk alcohol use was higher in females (50.48% vs. 49.52%; OR: 1.84; CI 95%: 0.99⁻3.43%; p = 0.036). The lower the intensity of friendship, the more contacts adolescent at-risk alcohol users had within the network, and the easier it was for them to access their peers. Consequently, we conclude that the structure of a class is a key factor that merits further research.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; alcohol consumption; social-network analysis; structural pattern in the class
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30134531 PMCID: PMC6164789 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15091795
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Dichotomization by contact intensity.
| Contact Intensity | Values Indicating No Contact | Values Indicating Contact |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum | 1 | 2, 3, 4, and 5 |
| Intermediate | 1 and 2 | 3, 4, and 5 |
| Maximum | 1, 2 and 3 | 4 and 5 |
1: we never spend time together; 2: we sometimes spend time together; 3: we spend quite a lot of time together; 4: we’re almost always together; and 5: we’re always together.
Descriptive statistics for relational variables according to contact intensity between individuals.
| Centrality Under Contact Intensity | Mean | SD | CI 95% | P25 | P50 | P75 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 42.33 | 1.88 | 38.62–46.03 | 29.73 | 47.06 | 100 |
|
| 42.33 | 1.42 | 39.52–45.14 | 32.45 | 47.07 | 90 | |
|
| 57.04 | 1.060 | 53.87–60.20 | 45.02 | 63.22 | 100 | |
|
| 45.07 | 1.44 | 42.23–47.92 | 34.26 | 44.74 | 90.91 | |
|
| 57.33 | 1.53 | 54.30–60.35 | 53.33 | 63 | 100 | |
|
| 3.27 | 0.32 | 2.65–3.90 | 1.21 | 3.28 | 23.3 | |
|
| 30.25 | 0.75 | 28.76–31.74 | 25.68 | 34.38 | 55.93 | |
|
|
| 20.26 | 1.23 | 17.84–22.68 | 10.53 | 20.53 | 80.14 |
|
| 20.26 | 0.98 | 18.33–22.19 | 12.50 | 25 | 55.30 | |
|
| 28.39 | 1.22 | 25.98–30.81 | 20 | 33.33 | 80.14 | |
|
| 20.91 | 1.022 | 18.89–22.93 | 11.25 | 23.75 | 60.61 | |
|
| 26.76 | 1.44 | 23.92–29.61 | 15 | 30.32 | 83.43 | |
|
| 4.46 | 0.47 | 3.54–5.39 | 0.60 | 4.48 | 33.26 | |
|
| 26.82 | 1.25 | 24.34–29.30 | 16.18 | 37.25 | 69.97 | |
|
|
| 11.04 | 0.83 | 9.41–12.68 | 5 | 12.88 | 47.26 |
|
| 11.05 | 0.68 | 9.71–12.38 | 5.56 | 15 | 40 | |
|
| 11.04 | 0.68 | 9.71–12.38 | 5.56 | 15 | 40 | |
|
| 9.69 | 0.44 | 8.82–10.57 | 6.02 | 9.17 | 25.34 | |
|
| 11.04 | 0.65 | 9.75–12.33 | 5.88 | 9.09 | 37.21 | |
|
| 3.02 | 0.44 | 2.14–3.89 | 0 | 1.96 | 28.52 | |
|
| 23.17 | 1.59 | 20.04–26.30 | 5.82 | 30.90 | 76.10 | |
Degree: the ties surrounding each individual; indegree: ties received; outdegree: ties emitted; in/outcloseness: degree of proximity; betweenness: degree of intermediation; eigenvector: degree of prestige/influence.
Figure 1Graph of minimum contact intensity in a class. Males are shown in blue and females in pink; circles represent individuals whose consumption did not present a risk and squares represent individuals showing at-risk use. Graphs produced using UCINET software [48]: (a) where the size of the nodes indicates the degree of intermediation (betweenness); (b) where the size of the nodes indicates the degree of ties (degree).
Figure 2Graph of minimum contact intensity in a class. Males are shown in blue and females in pink; circles represent individuals whose consumption did not present a risk and squares represent individuals showing at-risk use. Graphs produced using UCINET software [48]: (a) where the size of the nodes indicates the degree of prestige or influence (eigenvector); (b) where the size of the nodes indicates the degree of proximity (closeness).
Figure 3Graph of intermediate contact intensity in a class. Males are shown in blue and females in pink; circles represent individuals whose consumption did not present a risk and squares represent individuals showing at-risk use. Graphs produced using UCINET software [48]: (a) where the size of the nodes indicates the degree of intermediation (betweenness); (b) where the size of the nodes indicates the degree of ties (degree).