| Literature DB >> 34819121 |
Moses K Nyongesa1,2, Paul Mwangi3, Michael Kinuthia3, Amin S Hassan3, Hans M Koot4, Pim Cuijpers4, Charles R J C Newton3,5,6,7, Amina Abubakar3,5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In sub-Saharan Africa, there is paucity of research on substance use patterns among young people living with HIV (YLWH). To address the gap, we sought to: i) determine the prevalence of substance use, specifically alcohol and illicit drug use, among YLWH compared to their HIV-uninfected peers; ii) investigate the independent association between young people's HIV infection status and substance use; iii) investigate the risk indicators for substance use among these young people.Entities:
Keywords: HIV infections; Kenya; Prevalence; Risk indicators; Substance use; Young people
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34819121 PMCID: PMC8613997 DOI: 10.1186/s13011-021-00422-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy ISSN: 1747-597X
Characteristics of young people from the Kenyan coast (n = 812), shown by HIV infection status
| Characteristic | Whole sample | HIV infection status | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIV uninfected youths, | YLWH, | |||
| Kilifi (rural) | 403 (49.6) | 200 (49.3) | 203 (50.0) | 0.83 |
| Mombasa (urban) | 409 (50.4) | 206 (50.7) | 203 (50.0) | |
| 20.9 (2.1) | 21.0 (1.9) | 20.8 (2.2) | 0.13 | |
| Female | 412 (50.7) | 182 (44.8) | 230 (56.7) | < 0.01 |
| Male | 400 (49.3) | 224 (55.2) | 176 (43.4) | |
| | 193 (23.8) | 130 (32.0) | 63 (15.5) | < 0.01† |
| | 354 (43.6) | 179 (44.1) | 175 (43.1) | |
| | 253 (31.2) | 93 (22.9) | 160 (39.4) | |
| | 12 (1.5) | 4 (1.0) | 8 (2.0) | |
| Formally employed | 27 (3.3) | 11 (2.7) | 16 (3.9) | 0.16 |
| Self-employed | 94 (11.6) | 52 (12.8) | 42 (10.3) | |
| Student | 303 (37.3) | 162 (39.9) | 141 (34.7) | |
| Unemployed | 388 (47.8) | 181 (44.6) | 207 (51.0) | |
| | 169 (20.8) | 82 (20.2) | 87 (21.4) | 0.06 |
| | 602 (74.1) | 296 (72.9) | 306 (75.4) | |
| | 41 (5.1) | 28 (6.9) | 13 (3.2) | |
| | 670 (82.7) | 358 (88.6) | 312 (76.9) | < 0.01 |
| | 32 (4.0) | 8 (2.0) | 24 (5.9) | |
| | 108 (13.3) | 38 (9.4) | 70 (17.2) | |
| | 720 (88.7) | 359 (88.4) | 361 (88.9) | 0.91 |
| | 17 (2.1) | 8 (2.0) | 9 (2.2) | |
| | 75 (9.2) | 39 (9.6) | 36 (8.9) | |
| | 429 (52.8) | 308 (75.9) | 121 (29.8) | < 0.01 |
| | 238 (29.3) | 85 (20.9) | 153 (37.7) | |
| | 145 (17.9) | 13 (3.2) | 132 (32.5) | |
| | 80 (9.9) | 51 (12.6) | 29 (7.1) | < 0.01 |
| | 476 (58.6) | 255 (62.8) | 221 (54.4) | |
| | 256 (31.5) | 100 (24.6) | 156 (38.4) | |
| | 761 (93.8) | 374 (92.4) | 387 (95.3) | 0.08 |
| | 50 (6.2) | 31 (7.6) | 19 (4.7) | |
| | 739 (91.1) | 364 (89.9) | 375 (92.4) | 0.21 |
| | 72 (8.9) | 41 (10.1) | 31 (7.6) | |
| | 728 (89.7) | 387 (95.3) | 341 (84.0) | < 0.01 |
| | 84 (10.3) | 19 (4.7) | 65 (16.0) | |
| 2.4 (1.6) | 2.6 (1.6) | 2.2 (1.6) | < 0.01 | |
| 4 (2–6) | 3 (2–5) | 5 (3–7) | < 0.01 ‡ | |
| 4 (1–9) | 3 (1–6) | 6 (3–10) | < 0.01 ‡ | |
| 4 (1–7) | 3 (0–5) | 5 (2–8) | < 0.01 ‡ | |
All numbers are reported as frequencies with percentages in brackets unless otherwise specified
p-values are for the difference between HIV infected and uninfected youths by sample characteristic
YLWH Young people living with HIV, SD Standard deviation, IQR Interquartile range, PHQ-9 The 9-item patient health questionnaire, GAD-7 The 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, † based on Fisher’s exact test, ‡ based on Wilcoxon’s ranksum test, # co-occurrence of both depressive and anxiety symptoms, a – tobacco-based cigarette, b – possible score range = 0 to 7, c – score range = 0 to 15, d – score range = 0 to 27, e – score range = 0 to 21
Prevalence of substance use among YLWH versus HIV-uninfected peers from the Kenyan coast
| Whole sample, | HIV uninfected youths, | HIV- positive youths, | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freq. | Prevalence (95% CI) | Freq. | Prevalence (95% CI) | Freq. | Prevalence (95% CI) | ||
| Any current alcohol use | 150 | 18.5 (15.9, 21.3) | 97 | 23.9 (20.0, 28.3) | 53 | 13.1 (10.1, 16.7) | < 0.001 |
| Any current illicit drug use | 90 | 11.1 (9.1, 13.4) | 60 | 14.8 (11.6, 18.6) | 30 | 7.4 (5.2, 10.4) | < 0.001 |
| Current alcohol & illicit drug comorbidity | 58 | 7.1 (5.6, 9.1) | 44 | 10.8 (8.2, 14.3) | 14 | 3.5 (2.1, 5.7) | < 0.001 |
| Hazardous alcohol use | 51 | 6.3 (4.8, 8.2) | 29 | 7.1 (5.0, 10.1) | 22 | 5.4 (3.6, 8.1) | 0.31 |
| Hazardous illicit drug use | 58 | 7.1 (5.6, 9.1) | 34 | 8.4 (6.0, 11.5) | 24 | 5.9 (4.0, 8.7) | 0.17 |
| Hazardous alcohol and illicit drug use comorbidity | 23 | 2.8 (1.9, 4.2) | 13 | 3.2 (1.9, 5.4) | 10 | 2.5 (1.3, 4.5) | 0.53 |
| Probable alcohol dependence | 18 | 2.2 (1.4, 3.5) | 10 | 2.5 (1.3, 4.5) | 8 | 2.0 (1.0, 3.9) | 0.63 |
| Probable illicit drug dependence | 4 | 0.5 (0.2, 1.3) | 2 | 0.5 (0.01, 2.0) | 2 | 0.5 (0.01, 2.0) | 1.0 |
95% CI 95% confidence interval; Freq Frequency
abased on prtest, a two-sample test of differences in proportion using defined binary groups
Logistic regression analysis of risk indicators for any current alcohol use among young people from the Kenyan coast
| Covariate | Whole sample, | YLWH, | HIV uninfected young people, | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariable analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariable analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariable analysis | |
| Female | Ref | Ref | Ref | – | Ref | Ref |
| Male | 2.60*** (1.78, 3.78) | 1.79** (1.13, 2.85) | 2.02** (1.12, 3.63) | – | 2.78*** (1.69, 4.60) | 1.90** (1.01, 3.57) |
| Overall | Overall | Overall | ||||
| Muslim | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Christian | 2.01*** (1.20, 3.36) | 3.67*** (1.93, 7.00) | 2.83** (1.09, 7.36) | 4.37*** (1.47, 13.02) | 1.71* (0.91, 3.21) | 3.54*** (1.53, 8.16) |
| No religion | 2.22* (0.92, 5.35) | 4.01** (1.34, 11.97) | 4.92* (1.02, 23.76) | 8.59** (1.28, 57.53) | 1.32 (0.45, 3.86) | 2.67 (0.66, 10.83) |
| Overall | Overall | Overall | ||||
| | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| | 2.38*** (1.56, 3.64) | 2.42*** (1.47, 4.00) | 2.29** (1.10, 4.79) | 2.17* (0.97, 4.84) | 2.19*** (1.29, 3.73) | 2.60*** (1.32, 5.11) |
| | 1.00 (0.64, 1.58) | 1.08 (0.61, 1.92) | 0.87 (0.44, 1.72) | 0.61 (0.28, 1.35) | 1.34 (0.72, 2.49) | 2.04 (0.86, 4.82) |
| | 1.14 (0.24, 5.33) | 1.63 (0.25, 10.70) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4.59* (0.62, 33.84) | 15.42** (1.26, 188.36) |
| Overall | Overall | Overall | ||||
| Family/Relative | Ref | Ref | Ref | – | Ref | Ref |
| Friend/non-relative | 1.52 (0.49, 4.75) | 1.22 (0.33, 4.51) | 2.17 (0.44, 10.79) | – | 1.18 (0.23, 5.97) | 0.55 (0.06, 4.66) |
| Alone | 2.48*** (1.47, 4.16) | 2.45*** (1.30, 4.61) | 2.53** (1.11, 5.75) | – | 2.47** (1.24, 4.89) | 3.48*** (1.50, 8.05) |
| 1.27*** (1.14, 1.42) | 1.34*** (1.17, 1.55) | 1.16* (0.97, 1.38) | – | 1.32*** (1.14, 1.53) | 1.44*** (1.18, 1.76) | |
| Overall | Overall | |||||
| None | Ref | Ref | – | – | Ref | Ref |
| 1–5 events | 1.27 (0.62, 2.57) | 1.35 (0.59, 3.09) | – | – | 1.61 (0.69, 3.78) | 1.47 (0.53, 4.09) |
| 6+ events | 2.48** (1.21, 5.09) | 3.17*** (1.35, 7.46) | – | – | 3.85*** (1.58, 9.42) | 4.13** (1.37, 12.45) |
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref | – | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 10.68*** (5.76, 19.81) | 5.97*** (2.73, 13.08) | 5.53*** (2.11, 14.47) | – | 17.48*** (6.91, 44.18) | 13.42*** (4.45, 40.50) |
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 10.81*** (6.40, 18.24) | 8.59*** (4.46, 16.55) | 11.43*** (5.21, 25.10) | 15.75*** (6.51, 38.12) | 10.52*** (5.11, 21.67) | 7.99*** (3.11, 20.51) |
| Not present | – | – | Ref | Ref | – | – |
| Present | – | – | 1.88* (0.94, 3.76) | 2.27** (1.02, 5.05) | – | – |
| 811 | 398 | 405 | ||||
| 25.0% | 17.6% | 30.1% | ||||
* p value< 0.15, ** p value < 0.05, *** p value < 0.01
Only variables with p-value < 0.15 in the univariate and p < 0.05 in the multivariable analysis are presented here
aco-occurrence of both depressive and anxiety symptoms
bfor this variable category, no participant currently used any alcohol type, hence there was perfect prediction of failure in the regression analyses denoted by null value of 1.00
OR Odds ratio, aOR Adjusted odds ratio, Ref Reference group
Logistic regression analysis of risk indicators for any current illicit drug use among young people from the Kenyan coast
| Covariate | Whole sample, | YLWH, | HIV uninfected young people, | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariable analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariable analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariable analysis | |
| Female | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Male | 8.07*** (4.32, 15.09) | 6.65*** (3.35, 13.20) | 5.89*** (2.35, 14.76) | 4.80*** (1.82, 12.68) | 9.32*** (3.91, 22.23) | 13.08*** (4.28, 39.98) |
| Rural (Kilifi) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | – |
| Urban (Mombasa) | 2.14*** (1.35, 3.39) | 2.12** (1.19, 3.78) | 3.58*** (1.50, 8.54) | 2.93** (1.14, 7.54) | 1.68* (0.96, 2.95) | – |
| Overall | Overall | Overall | ||||
| | 1.77** (1.07, 2.92) | 2.45*** (1.30, 4.61) | 2.32** (1.05, 5.11) | 3.13** (1.24, 7.89) | 1.52 (0.79, 2.93) | – |
| | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | – |
| | 2.36** (1.04, 5.37) | 2.75 (0.91, 8.32) | 1.33 (0.16, 10.83) | 0.68 (0.06, 7.42) | 2.26* (0.90, 5.68) | – |
| 1.25*** (1.09, 1.43) | – | – | – | 1.44*** (1.20, 1.72) | 1.49*** (1.15, 1.92) | |
| Overall | Overall | |||||
| None | Ref | Ref | – | – | Ref | – |
| 1–5 events | 3.15* (0.96, 10.33) | 3.32 (0.91, 12.10) | – | – | 2.72* (0.80, 9.17) | – |
| 6+ events | 4.06** (1.22, 13.59) | 4.08** (1.08, 15.48) | – | – | 4.00** (1.13, 14.17) | – |
| Overall | Overall | |||||
| Both alive | 2.26** (1.04, 4.89) | 3.15** (1.31, 7.58) | – | – | Ref | Ref |
| One alive | 2.66** (1.19, 5.95) | 3.38*** (1.35, 8.49) | – | – | 2.26*** (1.25, 4.11) | 3.04*** (1.35, 6.81) |
| Both deadb | Ref | Ref | – | – | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 12.41*** (7.65, 20.14) | 13.32*** (7.56, 23.48) | 7.56*** (3.43, 16.66) | 9.90*** (3.93, 24.95) | 15.20*** (8.00, 28.91) | 11.92*** (5.84, 24.32) |
| Not present | – | – | – | – | Ref | Ref |
| Present | – | – | – | – | 2.85** (1.04, 7.81) | 7.30*** (1.65, 32.30) |
| 812 | 406 | 393 | ||||
| 32.3% | 23.3% | 38.8% | ||||
* p value< 0.15, ** p value < 0.05, *** p value < 0.01
Only variables with p-value < 0.15 in the univariate and p < 0.05 in the multivariable analysis are presented here
aco-occurrence of both depressive and anxiety symptoms
bfor this variable category, no participant currently used any illicit drug, hence there was perfect prediction of failure in logistic regression analyses denoted by null value of 1.00
OR Odds ratio, aOR Adjusted odds ratio, Ref Reference group
Logistic regression analysis of risk indicators for current alcohol and illicit drug use comorbidity among young people from the Kenyan coast
| Covariate | Whole sample, | YLWH, | HIV uninfected young people, | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariable analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariable analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariable analysis | |
| Female | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Male | 7.21*** (3.37, 15.43) | 9.40*** (4.25, 20.80) | 3.40** (1.05, 11.04) | 4.29** (1.30, 14.21) | 9.67*** (3.39, 27.60) | 14.12*** (4.58, 43.53) |
| Overall | ||||||
| | Ref | Ref | – | – | – | – |
| | 1.72* (0.89, 3.33) | 1.62 (0.79, 3.31) | – | – | – | – |
| | 1.43 (0.75, 2.72) | 2.66*** (1.31, 5.43) | – | – | – | – |
| | 1.00 | 1.00 | – | – | – | – |
| 1.33*** (1.13, 1.57) | 1.46*** (1.21, 1.77) | – | – | 1.47*** (1.19, 1.80) | 1.80*** (1.39, 2.33) | |
| Overall | Overall | Overall | ||||
| Nonea | Ref | Ref | 1.00 | 1.00 | Ref | Ref |
| 1–5 events | 5.13* (0.69, 38.17) | 5.98 (0.78, 45.60) | Ref | Ref | 5.68* (0.75, 42.82) | 6.52 (0.81, 52.09) |
| 6+ events | 9.70** (1.30, 72.48) | 17.33*** (2.23, 134.67) | 5.51** (1.51, 20.10) | 6.44*** (1.74, 23.83) | 10.24** (1.32, 79.32) | 17.40*** (2.04, 148.07) |
| Overall | Overall | |||||
| Both alive | 2.41* (0.92, 6.28) | 3.72** (1.34, 10.30) | – | – | Ref | Ref |
| One alive | 2.43* (0.89, 6.65) | 3.35** (1.16, 9.70) | – | – | 2.32** (1.19, 4.52) | 2.94*** (1.34, 6.41) |
| Both deada | Ref | Ref | – | – | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 800 | 377 | 393 | ||||
| 19.1% | 12.4% | 24.6% | ||||
* p value< 0.15, ** p value < 0.05, *** p value < 0.01
Only variables with p-value < 0.15 in the univariate and p < 0.05 in the multivariable analysis are presented here
afor these variable categories, no participant had any current alcohol and illicit drug use comorbidity, hence there was perfect prediction of failure in logistic regression analyses denoted by null value of 1.00
OR Odds ratio, aOR Adjusted odds ratio, Ref Reference group