| Literature DB >> 36090843 |
Sara Valente de Almeida1,2, Rafael Correa3,4,5, Judite Gonçalves2.
Abstract
Objectives: We measure the impacts of an intersectoral intervention tackling adolescent substance use implemented between 2017 and 2019 in a tri-border region of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina.Entities:
Keywords: LMICs; RCT; adolescent behavior; adolescent health; interdisciplinary science; substance use
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36090843 PMCID: PMC9458850 DOI: 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604677
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Public Health ISSN: 1661-8556 Impact factor: 5.100
FIGURE 1Intervention timeline (Can Intersectoral Interventions Reduce Substance Use in Adolescence? Evidence From a Multicentre Randomized Controlled Study, Foz do Iguaçu, 2022).
Descriptive statistics (Can Intersectoral Interventions Reduce Substance Use in Adolescence? Evidence From a Multicentre Randomized Controlled Study, Foz do Iguaçu, 2022).
| 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | ||
| Age | Avg. | 15.49 | 15.32 | 15.88 | 15.76 | 16.40 | 16.28 |
| Brazil | Prop. | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.43 |
| Paraguay | Prop. | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.39 |
| Argentina | Prop. | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.30 | 0.17 |
| BMI | Avg. | 21.96 | 21.73 | 22.05 | 21.82 | 21.56 | 21.82 |
| Early sexual activity | Prop. | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.16 |
| Peer alcohol cons. | Avg. (days) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Peer cannabis cons. | Avg. (days) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Peer tobacco cons. | Avg. (days) | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Total | N | 446 | 434 | 318 | 327 | 223 | 235 |
FIGURE 2Frequency of any usage in the past 30 days, by gender over time (Can Intersectoral Interventions Reduce Substance Use in Adolescence? Evidence From a Multicentre Randomized Controlled Study, Foz do Iguaçu, 2022).
FIGURE 3Percentage of respondents by level of frequency usage in the past 30 days, by gender and substance (Can Intersectoral Interventions Reduce Substance Use in Adolescence? Evidence From a Multicentre Randomized Controlled Study, Foz do Iguaçu, 2022).
Impacts of the intervention on any consumption in the last 30 days (marginal effects) (Can Intersectoral Interventions Reduce Substance Use in Adolescence? Evidence From a Multicentre Randomized Controlled Study, Foz do Iguaçu, 2022).
| Alcohol | Cannabis | Tobacco | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
| Post-treat. | −0.01 | 0.03 | −0.03** | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.07*** |
| (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.01) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.02) | |
| Treatment | −0.01 | −0.00 | −0.02 | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.02) | |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Girl | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | −0.02 | −0.03 |
| (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.05) | (0.04) | (0.05) | (0.06) | |
| Age | 0.12*** | 0.09*** | 0.07*** | 0.03* | 0.05** | 0.03* |
| (0.02) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.01) | |
| Brazilian | −0.02 | −0.00 | −0.16** | −0.13 | −0.02 | 0.02 |
| (0.05) | (0.06) | (0.08) | (0.08) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
|
| 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | −0.12 | −0.09 |
| (0.14) | (0.14) | (0.08) | (0.08) | (0.10) | (0.10) | |
|
| 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.05** | −0.05** |
| (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.02) | (0.03) | |
| Early sex exposure | 0.15* | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.15* | 0.15* |
| (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.06) | (0.05) | (0.08) | (0.08) | |
| Peer avg. cons. | 0.02** | 0.04*** | 0.03*** | |||
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | ||||
Note: Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at institution level.***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
Dependent variables are binary with the value 1 if the respondent consumed each substance at least once in the last month; and 0 otherwise. Peer is the (leave one out) average group consumption in days. BMI under and over are binary variables indicating whether each individual has an unhealthy BMI (by deficiency or excess) or not. Results showing the introduction of a peer effect in interaction with the intervention related variables–time, treatment and both (DiD)—had very similar results, presented in Supplementary File S3.
Impacts of the intervention on light vs. heavy consumption (marginal effects) (Can Intersectoral Interventions Reduce Substance Use in Adolescence? Evidence From a Multicentre Randomized Controlled Study, Foz do Iguaçu, 2022).
| Alcohol | Cannabis | Tobacco | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
| Post-treat. | −0.16*** | −0.06 | −0.11** | 0.00 | −0.17*** | −0.10* |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
| Treatment | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.05 | −0.03 | −0.02 | −0.01 |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
|
|
|
| − | − | − | − |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Girls | −0.06** | −0.05** | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.10*** | 0.08** |
| (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
| Age | 0.09*** | 0.02 | 0.10*** | 0.03 | 0.10*** | 0.06*** |
| (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.02) | |
| Brazilian | −0.05* | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.09* | −0.33*** | −0.24*** |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
|
| — | — | — | — | 0.24 | 0.27* |
| (0.15) | (0.15) | |||||
|
| −0.03 | −0.01 | −0.04 | −0.03 | −0.14*** | −0.12*** |
| (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
| Early sex exposure | −0.04 | −0.05 | 0.15*** | 0.12*** | 0.13*** | 0.11** |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.05) | (0.04) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
| Peer avg. cons. | 0.04*** | 0.05*** | 0.03*** | |||
| (0.00) | (0.01) | (0.01) | ||||
| Observations | 773 | 773 | 371 | 371 | 627 | 627 |
Note: Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at institution level.***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
Dependent variables are binary with the value 1 if the respondent consumed each substance at least 10–19 days in the last month; and 0 otherwise. Peer is the (leave one out) average group consumption in days. BMI under and over are binary variables indicating whether each individual has an unhealthy BMI (by deficiency or excess) or not. Complete table in Supplementary File S3.