“You can’t chain a dog to a porch”: a multisite qualitative analysis of youth narratives of parental approaches to substance use

Harm Reduction Journal - Tập 16 - Trang 1-10 - 2019
Allie Slemon1, Emily K. Jenkins1, Rebecca J. Haines-Saah2, Zachary Daly1, Sunny Jiao1
1School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
2Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

Tóm tắt

Reducing harms of youth substance use is a global priority, with parents identified as a key target for efforts to mitigate these harms. Much of the research informing parental responses to youth substance use are grounded in abstinence and critiqued as ineffective and unresponsive to youth contexts. Parental provision of substances, particularly alcohol, is a widely used approach, which some parents adopt in an attempt to minimize substance use harms; however, research indicates that this practice may actually increase harms. There is an absence of research exploring youth perspectives on parental approaches to substance use or the approaches youth find helpful in minimizing substance use-related harms. This paper draws on interviews with youth aged 13–18 (N = 89) conducted within the Researching Adolescent Distress and Resilience (RADAR) study in three communities in British Columbia, Canada. An ethnographic approach was used to explore youth perspectives on mental health and substance use within intersecting family, social, and community contexts. This analysis drew on interview data relating to youth perspectives on parental approaches to substance use. A multisite qualitative analysis (MSQA) was conducted to examine themes within each research site and between all three sites to understand how youth perceive and respond to parental approaches to substance use in different risk environment contexts. Within each site, youths’ experiences of and perspectives on substance use were shaped by their parents’ approaches, which were in turn situated within local social, geographic, and economic community contexts. Youth descriptions of parental approaches varied by site, though across all sites, youth articulated that the most effective approaches were those that resonated with the realities of their lives. Zero-tolerance approaches were identified as unhelpful and unresponsive, while approaches that were aligned with harm reduction principles were viewed as relevant and supportive. Youth perspectives illustrate that parental approaches to substance use that are grounded in harm reduction principles resonate with young people’s actual experiences and can support the minimization of harms associated with substance use. Evidence-based guidance is needed that supports parents and young people in adopting more contextually responsive harm reduction approaches to youth substance use.

Tài liệu tham khảo

World Health Organization. Global status report on alcohol and health 2014. 2014. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112736/1/9789240692763_eng.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. World drug report 2012. 2012. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR2012/WDR_2012_web_small.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Roundtable 3 – Cross-cutting issues: Drugs and human rights, youth, women, children and communities. 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016//Background/RTpapers/Roundtable_3_FINAL_12April_clean.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018. Marceau K, Abar CC, Jackson KM. Parental knowledge is a contextual amplifier of associations of pubertal maturation and substance use. J Youth Adolesc. 2015;44(9):1720–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0335-8. Moreno O, Janssen T, Cox MJ, Colby S, Jackson KM. Parent-adolescent relationships in Hispanic versus Caucasian families: associations with alcohol and marijuana use onset. Addict Behav. 2017;74:74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.05.029. Reimuller A, Hussong A, Ennett ST. The influence of alcohol-specific communication on adolescent alcohol use and alcohol-related consequences. Prev Sci. 2011;12(4):389–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0227-4. Midford R. Drug prevention programmes for young people: where have we been and where should we be going? Addiction. 2010;105:1688–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02790.x. Bok M, Morales J. Harm reduction: dealing differently with adolescents and youth. J HIV/AIDS Prev Aduc Adolesc Child. 1999;3(3):87–99. https://doi.org/10.1300/J129v03n03_06. Farrugia A. Assembling the dominant accounts of youth drug use in Australian harm reduction drug education. Int J Drug Policy. 2014;25(4):663–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.04.019. Harvey SA, McKay MT, Sumnall HR. Adolescents’ reflections on school-based alcohol education in the United Kingdom: education as usual compared with a structured harm reduction intervention. J Subst Use. 2016;21:640–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/14659891.2015.1130182. Gilligan C, Kypri K, Lubman D. Changing parental behaviour to reduce risky drinking among adolescents: current evidence and future directions. Alcohol Alcohol. 2012;47(3):349–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/ags022. Jones SC, Magee C, Andrews K. ‘I think other parents might. … ’: using a projective technique to explore parental supply of alcohol. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2015;34(5):531–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12258. Kaynak Ö, Winters KC, Cacciola J, Kirby KC, Arria AM. Providing alcohol for underage youth: what messages should we be sending parents? J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014;75(4):590–605. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2014.75.590. Mattick RP, Clare PJ, Aiken A, Wadolowski M, Hutchinson D, Najman J, et al. Association of parental supply of alcohol with adolescent drinking, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorder symptoms: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Health. 2018;3(2):e64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30240-2. Rolando S, Beccaria F, Tigerstedt C, Törrönen J. First drink: what does it mean? The alcohol socialization process in different drinking cultures. Drug Educ Prev Policy. 2012;19(3):201–12. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2012.658105. Stockings E, Hall WD, Lynskey M, Morley KI, Reavley N, Strang J, et al. Prevention, early intervention, harm reduction, and treatment of substance use in young people. Lancet Psych. 2016;3(3):280–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00002-X. Public Health Agency of Canada. Preventing problematic substance use in youth. 2018. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/corporate/publications/chief-public-health-officer-reports-state-public-health-canada/2018-preventing-problematic-substance-use-youth/2018-preventing-problematic-substance-use-youth.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018. McKay M, Sumnall H, McBride N, Harvey S. The differential impact of a classroom-based, alcohol harm reduction intervention, on adolescents with different alcohol use experiences: a multi-level growth modelling analysis. J Adolesc. 2014;37:1057–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.07.014. Midford R, Mitchell J, Lester L, Cahill H, Foxcroft D, Ramsden R, et al. Preventing alcohol harm: early results from a cluster randomised, controlled trial in Victoria, Australia of comprehensive harm minimisation school drug education. Int J Drug Policy. 2014;25:142–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.05.012. Moffat BM, Haines-Saah RJ, Johnson JL. From didactic to dialogue: assessing the use of an innovative classroom resource to support decision-making about cannabis use. Drugs Educ Prev Policy. 2016;24:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2016.1206846. Reeves S, Kuper A, Hodges BD. Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. Br Med J. 2008;337:512–4. Carspecken FP. Critical ethnography in educational research: a theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge; 1996. Statistics Canada. National household survey profile, 2011, vol. 2013. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed 10 December 2018 Statistics Canada. Census profile, 2016. 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed 10 December 2018. Destination BC Corp. Places to go. 2017. https://www.hellobc.com. Accessed 10 December 2018. Marshall SG. Canadian drug policy and the reproduction of indigenous inequities. Int Indig Policy J. 2015;6(1):Article7. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2015.6.1.7. Frolich KL, Ross N, Richmond C. Health disparities in Canada today: some evidence and a theoretical framework. Health Policy. 2006;79:132–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.12.010. Rhodes T. The ‘risk environment’: a framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm. Int J Drug Policy. 2002;13:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-3959(02)00007-5. Rhodes T, Lilly R, Fernández C, Giorgino E, Kemmesis UE, Ossebard HC, et al. Risk factors associated with drug use: the importance of ‘risk environment’. Drug Educ Prev Policy. 2003;10(4):303–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968763031000077733. Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc; 1998. Jenkins EK, Slemon A, Haines-Saah RJ, Oliffe J. A guide to multisite qualitative analysis. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(12):1969–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318786703. Duff C. The importance of culture and context: rethinking risk and risk management in young drug using populations. Health Risk Soc. 2003;5(3):285–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570310001606987. Dudovitz RN, Perez-Aguilar G, Kim G, Wong MD, Chung PJ. How urban youth perceive relationships among school environments, social networks, self-concept, and substance use. Acad Pediatr. 2017;17(2):161–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2016.10.007. Cohen-Filipic K, Bentley KJ. From every direction: guilt, shame, and blame among parents of adolescents with co-occurring challenges. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2015;32:443–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-015-0381-9. Kliewer W, Sosnowski DW, Wilkins S, Garr K, Booth C, McGuire K, et al. Do parent-adolescent discrepancies predict deviant peer affiliation and subsequent substance use? J Youth Adolesc. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0879-5. Rhodes T. Risk environments and drug harms: a social science for harm reduction approach. Int J Drug Policy. 2009;20:193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2008.10.003. Evans-Campbell T. Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska communities: a multilevel framework for exploring impacts on individuals, families, and communities. J Interpers Violence. 2008;23(3):316–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507312290. Firestone M, Tyndall M, Fischer B. Substance use and related harms among Aboriginal people in Canada: a comprehensive review. J Health Care Poor and Underserved. 2015;26(4):1110–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2015.0108. Ford JA, Hill TD. Religiosity and adolescent substance use: evidence from the national survey on drug use and health. Subst Use Misuse. 2012;47(7):787–98. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2012.667489. Sanchez Z, Opaleye ES, Chaves TV, Noto AR, Nappo SA. God forbids or mom disapproves? Religious beliefs that prevent drug use among youth. J Adolesc Res. 2011;26(5):591–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558411402337. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Parents: facts on teen drug use. 2018. https://teens.drugabuse.gov/parents. Accessed 10 December 2018. Government of Canada. Talking with teenagers about drugs. 2018. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/talking-about-drugs/talking-with-teenagers-about-drugs.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2018. Haines-Saah RJ, Hilario CT, Jenkins EK, Ng CKY, Johnson JL. Understanding adolescent narratives about “bullying” through an intersectional lens: implications for youth mental health interventions. Youth Soc. 2018;50(5):636–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X15621465. Werb D, Mills EJ, DeBeck K, Kerr T, Montaner JSG, Wood E. The effectiveness of anti-illicit-drug public-service announcements: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65:834–40. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2010.125195.