"Although the utility of SGICs has been improved somewhat recently, for example by using a set of identity questions that are more convenient to form individually specific SGICs, problems associated with such practice still remain. Studies with adolescents have reported a sizable difference in health risk behavioral outcome measures between the matched and unmatched groups (e.g., DiIorio et al. 2000; Kearney et al. 1984). Recently, Schnell et al. (2010) highlighted concerns about the high proportion of non-matched subjects in studies that use SGIC to link data across multiple time points and make suggestions for improvements. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Self-generated identification codes (SGICs) are an increasingly utilized methodological feature of longitudinal prevention research among adolescents. This study sought to test the differences between the matched and unmatched groups at baseline on a number of background, health, and well-being and risk behavior measures in a prevention study among 13- to 16-year-old Icelandic adolescents where a SGIC was constructed and used to link individual-level respondent data over two data collection points one year apart. We use pilot data from two Reykjavik city secondary schools collected as part of the population study Youth in Iceland in February 2010 and 2011 (N = 366, SGIC matching rate 61 %). Baseline results for the matched and unmatched participants are compared. Findings indicate that the unmatched subjects are both more likely to be substance users than their matched counterparts as well as being more likely to be boys and/or from disrupted families. Five out of the seven scaled measures for risk and protective factors and personality indicators reveal no difference between the matched and unmatched subjects and the significantly different measures reveal small effect sizes between the two groups. However, the effect sizes for substance use are significantly different between the matched and unmatched groups for all seven substance use measures with effect sizes from 0.52 to 1.32. These findings therefore indicate that the measurement validity of adolescent risk behaviors such as substance use may be put in jeopardy when using SGIC and that unmatched subjects may be more likely to distrust the SGIC process.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A significant proportion of adolescents who attend celebratory events often engage in substantial alcohol and other drug use. We examined patterns, influences and impacts of drug consumption at an end of schooling life celebration.
Seventeen- to 18-year-old Australians who intended to attend (n = 541) and who attended the celebration (n = 405), respectively, completed pre- and post-event surveys.
Males consumed 18.44 and females 13.24 Australian standard drinks on an average day during the school leavers' event. Compared with their last social event, there was greater alcohol (P < 0.0005) and ecstasy use (P < 0.046 for Day 1 and P < 0.008 on Day 3). However, the number of drinks consumed per hour appeared to be similar across contexts. Most (87%) experienced at least one negative outcome attributed to alcohol and other drug use. Safety strategies were frequently used and appeared to be protective against some of the most common harms (hangover, vomiting, black out and unprotected sex).
The use of alcohol and other drugs at this celebratory event appears to be reflective of the greater than usual number of drinking hours that are available to participants. The use of safety strategies can be successful in mitigating some of the most common drug-related harms.
Journal of Public Health 08/2013; 36(3). DOI:10.1093/pubmed/fdt087 · 2.04 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.