ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Family dynamics influence adolescents’ use of alcohol and other substances, such as cannabis. The aim of this study was to understand the relationship between family variables and alcohol use, dual use of alcohol and cannabis, and non-use in adolescents according to sex. A cross-sectional study was conducted. The sample comprised 879 adolescents (56.4% boys; M(SD)age = 14.25 (1.88) years). Multinomial regression analysis showed that for boys, the presence of family conflict increased the likelihood of being an alcohol (OR = 1.19) and dual (OR = 1.22) user rather than a non-user. For girls, communication reduced the probability of being an alcohol user (OR = 0.89), and the presence of consequences for breaking rules reduced the probability of being a dual user rather than a non-user (OR = 0.83) or an alcohol user (OR = 0.83). These findings highlight the importance of family prevention of adolescents’ substance use, bearing in mind the participants’ sex.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Addictive Behaviors 146 (2023) 107798
Available online 1 July 2023
0306-4603/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Dual alcohol and cannabis use in male and female adolescents:
Relationships with family variables
Dalila Eslava
, Carmela Martínez-Vispo
, Víctor Jos´
e Villanueva-Blasco
e Manuel Errasti
, Susana Al-Halabí
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Plaza de Feijoo, 33003 Oviedo, Spain
Departament of Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, Calle Xos´
e María Su´
arez Nú˜
nez, s/n, 15782
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Faculty of Health Sciences, Valencian International University, C. del Pintor Sorolla, 21, 46002 Valencia, Spain
Dual use
Family variables
Family dynamics inuence adolescentsuse of alcohol and other substances, such as cannabis. The aim of this
study was to understand the relationship between family variables and alcohol use, dual use of alcohol and
cannabis, and non-use in adolescents according to sex. A cross-sectional study was conducted. The sample
comprised 879 adolescents (56.4 % boys; M(SD)age =14.25 (1.88) years). Multinomial regression analysis
showed that for boys, the presence of family conict increased the likelihood of being an alcohol (OR =1.19) and
dual (OR =1.23) user rather than a non-user. For girls, communication reduced the probability of being an
alcohol user (OR =0.88), and the presence of consequences for breaking rules reduced the probability of being a
dual user rather than a non-user (OR =0.83) or an alcohol user (OR =0.84). These ndings highlight the
importance of family prevention of adolescents substance use, bearing in mind the participants sex.
1. Introduction
Substance use in adolescence is an important public health issue due
to its negative consequences (World Health Organization, 2018).
Alcohol use is particularly important at this age, not least because of its
association with the early use of other substances such as cannabis
(Stamates et al., 2021) and an increased likelihood of risky alcohol use in
adulthood (Elsayed et al., 2018). The most recent prevalence data about
substance use in Spain indicate that alcohol is the most-used legal sub-
stance in adolescence, while cannabis is the most-used illegal substance
nol, 2021). Previous studies have indicated that adolescence is a
period in which experimentation and use of various substances is routine
(Moss et al., 2014), with the dual use of alcohol and cannabis being
common (Lees et al., 2021; Yurasek et al., 2017), especially by boys
(Patrick et al., 2018; Subbaraman & Kerr, 2015; Thompson et al., 2021).
In Spain, 75.2 % of adolescents with problematic cannabis use also re-
ported having binged on alcohol during the previous month (Espa˜
The literature shows that dual alcohol and cannabis use is related to a
higher frequency and quantity of use of the two substances than when
either is used alone (Patrick et al., 2018), increased likelihood of driving
under the inuence of drugs (Kelley-Baker et al., 2021), risky sexual
behaviors (Green et al., 2017), mental disorders (Yurasek et al., 2017),
and long term alcohol dependency (Wardell et al., 2020). In addition,
Banks et al. (2019), found that adolescents who were polyconsumers of
cannabis and other substances, including alcohol, demonstrated worse
perceptive reasoning, more internalizing problems, and more compli-
cations related to substance use than those who only used cannabis.
Social factors have been shown to be relevant variables related to
adolescent substance use, including siblings and family members. In this
vein, Thomas et al. (2022) found that siblings exert an inuence on each
others participation in risky behaviors, including alcohol and cannabis
co-use. Similarly, the association between family variables and sub-
stance use in adolescence is well-established in the literature (Xia et al.,
2019). Family conict is one of the most widely-studied aspects (Best
et al., 2014; Eslava et al., 2022), and high scores in this variable predict
more prolonged, problematic alcohol and cannabis use (Best et al., 2014;
Elam et al., 2018; Hern´
andez-Serrano et al., 2021). Other family vari-
ables, such as parental support and communication, also signicantly
inuence adolescents development of healthy behaviors (ˇ
Sumskas &
* Corresponding author at: Valencian International University, C/ Pintor Sorolla, 21, 46002 Valencia, Spain.
E-mail address: (V.J. Villanueva-Blasco).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Addictive Behaviors
journal homepage:
Received 12 April 2023; Received in revised form 27 June 2023; Accepted 1 July 2023
Addictive Behaviors 146 (2023) 107798
Zaborskis, 2017). Adolescents have been found to be at less risk of
alcohol and cannabis use where they have more family support (Moore
et al., 2018) and better communication between family members
(Cambron et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2010). Moreover,
Zuckermann et al. (2020) indicated that family support reduced the risk
of substance use.
Another family factor that has been examined in relation to drug use
is the rules about substance use. Heerde et al. (2019) noted that when
adolescents did not have rules about substance use or where the rules
were not clear, the frequency of alcohol and cannabis use in the previous
twelve months was higher. Hummer et al. (2022) found that adolescents
who felt that their parents approved their alcohol and cannabis use
demonstrated greater use of both substances in adulthood. Looking at
the consequences of rule-breaking, Miller et al. (2017) found that ex-
pectations of being punished for cannabis use could be a protective
factor, as the presence of such expectations was negatively related to
use. However, Cox et al. (2018) found no signicant results regarding
the consequences of alcohol use, highlighting the importance of
continuing to study this relationship given the scarcity of research.
Despite that family variables have been extensively studied in substance
use, the literature about the relationship between family variables and
dual use of alcohol and cannabis in adolescence is scant. Bri`
ere et al.
(2011) indicated that the use of these two substances in the previous
twelve months was related to poor communication and the presence of
conict with parents, as well as with the absence of parental rules.
According to the literature, it seems that the prevalence of dual
alcohol and cannabis use is greater in boys (Bri`
ere et al., 2011;
Thompson et al., 2021), as is the probability of consuming various
substances (Zuckermann et al., 2020), and developing use problems
andez-Artamendi et al., 2021). As far as we are aware, no studies
have examined the association between family variables and dual
alcohol and cannabis use by sex. This analysis may be interesting, as
parents seem to encourage different behaviors in their sons and
daughters (Naldini et al., 2018), and adolescents, depending on their
sex, seem to have different interpretations of the family context (Guo
et al., 2018). Furthermore, most studies about dual alcohol and cannabis
use have used medium-term use data (previous 12 months). Using short-
term measures of use (e.g., previous 30 days) would give more reliable
ndings about the relationship with family variables at the current time.
In addition, existing studies have tended to limit themselves to exploring
the dynamics with parents, without considering other members of the
family who may also inuence substance use (Howe et al., 2020).
Additionally, in Europe, between 77.2 and 90.9 % of people that use
cannabis mix this substance with tobacco (spliff), compared to 4.416.0
% of Americans (Hindocha et al., 2016). Although most of the literature
examining cannabis focuses merely on that substance, it would be
interesting to consider this phenomenon in European samples. For
instance, in Spain, 86.4 % of boys and 89.2 % of girls between 14 and 18
that use cannabis mix this substance with tobacco (Espa˜
nol, 2021). To
our knowledge, no studies have examined dual alcohol and cannabis use
with this conceptualization which has been pointed as a relevant ques-
tion when investigating cannabis use (Hern´
andez-Serrano et al., 2021).
Based on the reviewed literature and the relevance of understanding
the social and contextual variables involved in adolescent substance use
in order to intervene in this problem, as highlight Zuckermann et al.
(2020), this study aimed to examine the relationship between family
variables and only alcohol use, dual use of cannabis and alcohol, or non-
use according to sex in a sample of Spanish adolescents. Due to the
scarcity of studies analyzing this question, the present research may
offer novel and notable ndings with implications for designing and
tailoring preventive strategies.
2. Method
The study design was approved by the Ethical Research Committee of
Aragon (Spain) and Research Ethics Committee of the Valencian
International University (Spain). The study was conducted in accor-
dance with the Declaration of Helsinki and complied with the ethical
standards established in the Spanish Data Protection and Guarantee of
Digital Rights Law 3/2018.
This was a cross-sectional study; the STROBE checklist can be found
in the Supplementary material.
2.1. Participants
The target population was 912 Spanish adolescents from two sec-
ondary schools in the east of Spain selected by convenience sampling.
The inclusion criteria for participating in the study were (1) providing
parents or legal guardians written informed consent and (2) being
willing to participate. Most of the target population agreed to participate
(96 %). The nal study sample consisted of 879 participants (56.4 %
boys, Mage =14.25; SD =1.88, range =1119).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Sociodemographics
An ad hoc questionnaire was administered to collect sociodemo-
graphic information (age, sex, ethnicity, school year). Alcohol and cannabis use. The scales for alcohol and cannabis
use were from the ESTUDES 2012 survey (Espa˜
nol, 2014). Alcohol use
was measured using the question How many days have you used
alcohol in the last 30 days?. Cannabis use was measured using two
questions, Indicate if you have used cannabis and tobacco combined
(spliff) in the last 30 days and Indicate if you have used cannabis
(joint) in the last 30 days. Both questions were included since cannabis
is frequently used mixed with tobacco in Spain.
2.2.2. Family-related variables
The Evaluaci´
on Familiar Estrat´
egica [Strategic Family Evaluation]
(EFE) (Morell-Gomis et al., 2011) was use to measure family-related
variables. This consists of a self-report instrument assessing ve con-
structs about family dynamics (communication, social support, conict,
rules and consequences). It consists of 18 items, and they are rated on a
ve-point Likert scale (1 =never; 5 =always). The original instrument
assesses each dimension for each family member. In the present study,
only the adolescents lled out the questionnaire.
2.3. Procedure
Prior to the administration of the questionnaires, the school sent a
letter to the studentslegal guardians requesting their consent. The letter
informed them of the voluntary nature of the childrens participation
and the condentiality of the data by means of an alphanumeric code.
We protocolized the administration of the instrument battery. At the
beginning, we asked the students teacher to conrm the guardians
authorizations. Next, we presented the study to the students, briey
explaining the research and requesting their collaboration. The ques-
tionnaires were completed in the students regular classrooms during
school hours (approximately 3040 min), under the researchers
2.4. Analytical strategy
First, descriptive statistics for the total sample were calculated as
mean ±standard deviation for continuous variables and as frequency
(percentage) for categorical variables. Second, substance use and family-
related variables according to sex were assessed using the chi-squared
test and t-test. Then, a one-way analysis of variance (ANCOVA) was
used to compare differences in continuous family-related variables by
substance use, including sex and age as covariates. For this purpose,
D. Eslava et al.
Addictive Behaviors 146 (2023) 107798
three categories were created: non-use, only alcohol use, or both alcohol
and cannabis use. A group for cannabis-only users was not created since
only 1.2 % participants reported using cannabis and not alcohol. Bon-
ferroni tests were used for multiple comparisons. Where the assumption
of homogeneity of variances was violated, the Brown-Forsythe test and
Games-Howell tests for multiple comparisons were used.
Finally, multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted
separately for male and female participants, including family-related
variables as independent variables (Communication, Social Support,
Conict, Rules, Consequences), age as a covariate, and substance use as
the dependent variable (three levels: non-use, only alcohol use, and both
alcohol and cannabis use). Overall model t (R
) along with the
unstandardized parameter (B), standard error, odds ratio (OR), and 95 %
condence interval (CI) were calculated for the models. To illustrate
these results, ORs and Lower and Upper CI are represented with forest-
plot graphs. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically signicant.
Data analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version
26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Demographics, substance use and differences according to sex
A little over half of the total sample (56.4 %) were male and 43.6 %
were female. The ages of the sample ranged between 11 and 19 years (M
=14.25; SD =1.88). Less than a quarter (23.9 %) of the male and 29.2 %
of the female participants had used only alcohol during the previous 30
days (26.2 % of the total sample). Of the total sample, 10.1 % used
cannabis in the last 30 days (10.7 % males and 9.4 % females).
Regarding modality of use, 52.8 % only used cannabis mixed with to-
bacco (spliff) (n =47), 10.1 % only used cannabis joints (n =9), and
37.1 % (n =33) used both modalities (spliff and joint). When examining
alcohol and cannabis use, 9.9 % of the male participants and 7.6 % of the
female participants reported dual use during the previous 30 days (8.9 %
of the total sample).
Non-signicant differences were found in substance use according to
sex (Table 1). However, in family-related variables, female participants
reported signicantly higher communication and social support scores.
3.2. Differences in family-related variables according to substance use
Statistically signicant differences were found in family-related
variables between participants who had not used alcohol or cannabis
and those who had (alcohol only, or both alcohol and cannabis)
(Table 2). The post-hoc test showed that non-usersfamily communica-
tion, social support, rules, and consequences were signicantly higher
than those who had used alcohol or alcohol and cannabis during the
previous 30 days (Table 3). These tests also showed that family conict
scores were signicantly higher for those using alcohol or alcohol and
cannabis than non-users.
3.3. Multinomial regression analysis for family-related variables and
substance use
Multinomial logistic regression analyses (adjusted by age) examining
family-related variables and substance use during the previous 30 days
are presented in Fig. 1, and Table 4 for male participants and in Table 5
for female participants. The results indicated that male participants with
higher scores in family conict had a higher probability of being alcohol
users (OR =1.19) or dual alcohol and cannabis users (OR =1.23) than
being non-users. Only non-signicant associations were found between
participants using alcohol and cannabis and alcohol-only users.
The results from female participants showed that higher scores in
communication were associated with a decreased probability (OR =
0.88) of being an alcohol-only user compared to non-use (Table 5).
Moreover, higher scores in consequences were associated with a lower
probability of dual-use compared to non-use (OR =0.83) or alcohol use
(OR =0.84).
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship of family
variables and dual alcohol and cannabis use in comparison to alcohol
use alone and non-use according to participants sex. Overall, the nd-
ings indicate that the family variables inuenced the probability of ad-
olescents use of alcohol and dual use of alcohol and cannabis, albeit
with some differences between the sexes and for each type of use. These
ndings not only broaden our understanding of alcohol use, but also
contribute to the scant evidence available about dual alcohol and
cannabis use considering sex differences.
We did not nd any differences in the percentages of dual alcohol
and cannabis use according to sex, in contrast to other studies which
found that girls used alcohol more frequently (Kyrrestad et al., 2022)
Table 1
Differences in last-30 days substance use and family-related variables according
to sex.
(N =868)
(n =
(n =376)
% (n) % (n) % (n)
Substance use 1.120 0.290
Non use 63.8
Only alcohol use 26.1
Alcohol and
cannabis use
8.9 (78) 10.0 (49) 7.7 (29)
t p
Communication 18.7
2.070* 0.039
Social Support 17.29
2.541* 0.011
Conict 9.37
0.757 0.449
Rules 6.7 (2.3) 6.57
1.833 0.067
Consequences 10.86
1.412 0.158
Note. Scale ranges: Communication (525), social support (420), conict
(420), rules (2810) and consequences (315).
*p <0.05.
Table 2
Differences in family-related variables for non-use, only alcohol use, and alcohol
and cannabis use for last-30 days use.
Non-use Only
Both alcohol
and cannabis
F p
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Communication 19.22
17.41 (4.06)
12.611 <0.001
Social Support 17.65
16.05 (3.55)
10.980 <0.001
Conict 8.82
10.79 (3.83)
21.341 <0.001
Rules 6.93
6.37 (2.34) 7.464 <0.001
Consequences 11.24
9.76 (2.88)
13.217 <0.001
Note. Including sex and age as covariates.
Signicantly different from Non-use, p <0.05.
D. Eslava et al.
Addictive Behaviors 146 (2023) 107798
and boys exhibited more dual alcohol and cannabis use (Thompson
et al., 2021). In the family variables, we did nd that girls indicated that
there was more communication and support in their families than boys,
which is in line with the literature (Bireda & Pillay, 2018; Chen et al.,
2019). Our results are consistent with previous research conducted in
Spanish samples that found no signicant differences in substance use
according to sex but did nd signicant differences in family variables
(Cutrín et al., 2017). In addition, we looked at the differences in the
family variables between the participants who did not use either alcohol
or cannabis, those who used only alcohol, and those who used both. The
ndings indicated signicant differences between the groups. Non-users
exhibited higher scores in communication and social support, less con-
ict, and more consequences for rule-breaking than alcohol users or dual
users. The presence of rules was statistically greater in non-users than
alcohol-only users. These results are consistent with ndings of previous
studies that have found an association between dual use in the last 12
months and poor communication, conict, less support and lack of rules
ere et al., 2011; Zuckermann et al., 2020).
With regard to the inuence of family variables on the probability of
boys consuming alcohol and cannabis, the results show that higher
scores in family conict were associated with a greater likelihood of
being alcohol-user and dual-user than non-user. This is in line with
previous studies that have found a robust relationship between family
conict and substance use (Best et al., 2014; Yap et al., 2017). In a
longitudinal study, Heerde et al. (2019) found that adolescents who had
used alcohol and cannabis in the previous year reported greater family
conict, relating that to problematic use of both substances in adult-
hood. In addition, Bri`
ere et al. (2011) noted a positive relationship be-
tween family conict and dual alcohol and cannabis use. In the present
study, we only saw this relationship in the male participants. One
possible explanation for this result might be that family conict is more
common with boys, as girls tend to distance themselves less from their
parents during adolescence, and reach more agreements with them (Hou
et al., 2020). Substance use may also be a regulation strategy for the
unease or discomfort family conict causes (Trujillo et al., 2016), a
strategy that is more likely in boys/men (Turner et al., 2018; V´
Reyes et al., 2021). Nonetheless, our results differ from those presented
by Nelson et al. (2017), who found that girls with higher scores in family
conict tended to be more likely to consume cannabis. They did not nd
signicant results in boys, which they attributed to sex differences, with
the possibility that parents supervised girls more and this produced
more conict.
For the girls in our study, higher scores in family communication
were associated with a lower probability of consuming alcohol. Ohan-
nessian et al. (2016) also found this relationship only in women. Xia
et al. (2016) indicated that adolescent girlsproper communication with
their parents is more strongly related to psychosocial wellbeing than in
boys, which is why this may act as a protective factor for alcohol use. We
did not nd any differences with dual alcohol and cannabis use, possibly
because the numbers of girls reporting this kind of use was very small.
The size and number of studies need to be increased. On the other hand,
girls who reported greater consequences for breaking the rules were
associated with a lower likelihood of being dual users than non-users or
only alcohol users. In this regard, Cox et al. (2018) found no relationship
between the presence of family rules and alcohol use, whereas Miller
et al. (2017) found a negative relationship between cannabis use and the
family applying consequences in relation to that use, which might
explain why these results appear only for dual use.
Finally, another of our studys notable ndings was that the inu-
ence of the family variables we looked at did not demonstrate signi-
cance with regard to the probability of being a dual user or an alcohol-
only user, with the exception of differences in consequences for rule-
breaking in girls. This is a new nding, because, as far as we know, no
studies have examined the differential relationships of family variables
concerning alcohol-only use compared to dual-use. One hypothesis that
may, at least in part, explain this result is the normalization and
increasing acceptance of cannabis use (Kilwein et al., 2022). It is
important to note that the current study does not specically explore the
concurrent use of alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco, as tobacco smoking
was not examined. Research investigating cannabis use in European
samples usually report that tobacco and cannabis are frequently used
together. This form of use leads to various implications, such as an
increased likelihood of developing cannabis dependence (Agrawal et al.,
2009) and the association of exposure to nicotine to a higher probability
of future tobacco use among non-tobacco users (Belanger et al., 2013).
Therefore, it is crucial to continue investigating this approach in future
studies. It is essential to continue studying how family variables affect
the different patterns of use through longitudinal studies that examine
progression over time because adolescence is a critical period when it
comes to experimenting with substance use (Moore et al., 2018), bearing
in mind the sex of the participants. Looking at the broader picture, the
quality of family relationships has a signicant inuence on the social
and emotional well-being of adolescents (Weymouth et al., 2016).
Furthermore, Fern´
andez-Artamendi et al. (2021) highlighted the
Table 3
Games-Howell post hoc multiple comparison analyses of the analysis of variance (ANCOVA).
(I) (J) Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95 % CI
Communication Non-Use Only alcohol 1.268* 0.322 <0.001 0.50 2.04
Alcohol and cannabis use 1.814* 0.496 0.001 0.62 3.01
Only alcohol Non-Use 1.268* 0.322 <0.001 2.04 0.50
Alcohol and cannabis use 0.546 0.539 0.933 0.75 1.84
Social Support Non-Use Only alcohol 0.775* 0.236 0.003 0.21 1.34
Alcohol and cannabis use 1.598* 0.363 <0.001 0.73 2.47
Only alcohol Non-Use 0.775* 0.236 0.003 1.34 0.21
Alcohol and cannabis use 0.822 0.394 0.112 0.12 1.77
Conict Non-Use Only alcohol 1.394* 0.240 <0.001 1.97 0.82
Alcohol and cannabis use 1.975* 0.369 <0.001 2.86 1.09
Only alcohol Non-Use 1.394* 0.240 <0.001 0.82 1.97
Alcohol and cannabis use 0.581 0.401 0.443 1.54 0.38
Rules Non-Use Only alcohol 0.641* 0.180 0.001 0.21 1.07
Alcohol and cannabis use 0.553 0.277 0.138 0.11 1.22
Only alcohol Non-Use 0.641* 0.180 0.001 1.07 0.21
Alcohol and cannabis use 0.088 0.300 1.00 0.81 0.63
Consequences Non-Use Only alcohol 0.878* 0.242 0.001 0.30 1.46
Alcohol and cannabis use 1.484* 0.373 <0.001 0.59 2.38
Only alcohol Non-Use 0.878* 0.242 0.001 1.46 0.30
Alcohol and cannabis use 0.606 0.405 0.404 0.37 1.58
Note. CI: Condence Interval; LB: Lower Bound; UB:Upper Bound.
D. Eslava et al.
Addictive Behaviors 146 (2023) 107798
relevance of addressing mental health in adolescents to reduce sub-
stance use-related problems, particularly among girls, as a stronger as-
sociation has been observed in this group.
These results show how it is not just family involvement that is
needed in prevention and intervention for substance use in adolescence
(Al-Halabí Díaz & P´
erez, 2009; Errasti P´
erez et al., 2009; Fonseca-
Pedrero et al., 2021). As various authors have emphasized (Ballester
et al., 2021; Díaz-Mesa et al., 2016), sex differences also need to be
considered. Prevention programs such as Familias que funcionan or
interventions such as Functional Family Suppport Therapy that
include families present effective results for reducing both substance use
and family risk factors (Errasti P´
erez et al., 2009; Fern´
et al., 2022). However, a gender-based approach is still a pending task.
4.1. Limitations and strengths
The current study has some limitations to be considered in inter-
preting the results. First, causal and temporal interpretations could not
be established due to the cross-sectional nature of our data. Future
research should examine longitudinal associations between family var-
iables and different patterns of substance use. Second, due to the limited
number of participants who exclusively used cannabis in the past 30
days, we could not investigate the relationship between family variables
and only cannabis use. Furthermore, the small sample size prevented us
from separately analyzing cannabis users who consumed only joints
versus those who mixed it with tobacco. Third, we did not examine
substance use quantity nor frequency but only use (vs. non use). In
addition, we have no information on whether it was a rst-time or
regular use. Future studies with greater sample sizes and gathering
complete information about forms of use and quantity are warranted to
examine family variables and cannabis use further. Fourth, other social-
related factors, such as the specic inuence of siblings, have not been
examined. Future studies should consider the role of siblings concerning
substance use. Fifth, the self-reported and retrospective nature of the
data collected may have inherent biases such as report bias, social
desirability, stigma and participants ability to recall information. To
Fig. 1. Forest plots for alcohol and cannabis use during the last 30 days according to sex. Note. OR =odds ratio; LLCI =lower limit condence interval; ULCI =upper
limit condence interval.
D. Eslava et al.
Addictive Behaviors 146 (2023) 107798
mitigate the impact of this, we used a short and recent time period for
substance use assessment (last 30 days use) in line with previous
research (Kalmijn, 2022; Pedersen et al., 2019). Finally, we only gath-
ered information adolescents provided and did not include parent report
measures concerning family variables. Future studies should also
include parent-reported data in order to prevent possible bias.
Our study does have some strengths. Methodologically, it focuses on
a sample of adolescents between 11 and 19 years old (n =879), whereas
other studies have looked at young adults (1725 years old) (Green
et al., 2017; Hern´
andez-Serrano et al., 2021; Stevens et al., 2021). This is
important in the design of prevention policies (Gonz´
alez-Roz et al.,
2023). Patterns of use established during adolescence are likely to be
maintained over time (Terry-McElrath et al., 2017; Tomczyk et al.,
2016), and the number of different substances being used may grow
(Merrin et al., 2018). In addition, our analysis considered the inuence
of age, reducing the possibility of bias. The analysis differentiated by sex
also produced more specic results and was more sensitive to sex dif-
ferences, unlike other studies which referenced samples in general
ere et al., 2011; Zuckerman et al., 2020). Moreover, a novel
approach is provided by considering the pattern of cannabis use in
Europe, thus supporting cross-cultural studies. Finally, another novel
aspect of our study was the inclusion of analysis of dual alcohol and
cannabis use in the previous 30 days, compared to previous studies
which looked that the previous 12 months. This methodological
approach gave added information to the study in terms of family dy-
namics, as that can vary less over short time periods than over longer
5. Conclusions
This study contributes to the information in the literature about how
family variables inuence the probability of adolescents being users of
alcohol, dual users of alcohol and cannabis, or non-users according to
sex. The study conrms that various family variables inuence that
probability. However, there were family variables that were common to
both types of use, whereas others only exhibited relationships with one
type, and some variables were different for boys and girls. More spe-
cically, in boys, family conict was related to a greater probability of
being a user of alcohol alone or a dual user of alcohol and cannabis. In
girls, communication reduced the probability of both types of use, and
the presence of consequences for breaking family rules reduced the
probability of dual use rather than alcohol-only use.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dalila Eslava: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Re-
sources, Data curation, Writing original draft. Carmela Martínez-
Vispo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data cura-
tion, Writing original draft. Víctor Jos´
e Villanueva-Blasco:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing
review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Jos´
e Manuel
Errasti: Writing review & editing, Visualization. Susana Al-Halabí:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing review & editing, Visuali-
zation, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
Agrawal, A., Lynskey, M. T., Madden, P. A., Pergadia, M. L., Bucholz, K. K., &
Heath, A. C. (2009). Simultaneous cannabis and tobacco use and cannabis-related
Table 4
Multinomial regression analysis of alcohol and cannabis use during the last 30
days for male participants.
B SE OR OR 95 % CI
Lower Upper
Only alcohol use (n =118) vs non-use (n =325)
Age 0.62 0.08 1.86
1.60 2.15
Communication 0.04 0.05 0.97 0.88 1.06
Social Support 0.10 0.06 1.11 0.99 1.24
Conict 0.17 0.04 1.19
1.09 1.29
Rules 0.08 0.07 0.93 0.80 1.07
Consequences 0.05 0.5 0.95 0.87 1.04
Cannabis and Alcohol use (n =49) vs non-use (n =325)
Age 0.75 0.11 2.11
1.71 2.61
Communication 0.07 0.07 0.93 0.82 1.07
Social Support 0.01 0.07 1.00 0.87 1.16
Conict 0.20 0.06 1.23
1.10 1.36
Rules 0.08 0.11 1.09 0.88 1.35
Consequences 0.03 0.06 0.97 0.86 1.09
Cannabis and Alcohol use (n =49) vs only alcohol use (n =118)
Age 0.13 0.11 1.14 0.93 1.40
Communication 0.04 0.07 0.97 0.84 1.10
Social Support 0.10 0.07 0.91 0.79 1.04
Conict 0.03 0.05 1.03 0.93 1.15
Rules 0.16 0.11 1.17 0.95 1.46
Consequences 0.02 0.06 1.02 0.90 1.15
Note. Model t: R
=0.295 (Cox & Snell), 0.362 (Nagelkerke). Model
(12) =
172.205, p <0.001.
OR =odds ratio; CI =condence interval; SE =standard error.
*p <0.05, **p <0.01, ***p <0.001.
Table 5
Multinomial regression analysis of alcohol and cannabis use during the last 30
days for female participants.
B SE OR OR 95 % CI
Lower Upper
Only alcohol use (n =111) vs non-use (n =236)
Age 0.73 0.09 2.08
1.75 2.47
Communication 0.13 0.05 0.88* 0.79 0.98
Social Support 0.08 0.06 1.08 0.96 1.23
Conict 0.12 0.05 1.01 0.92 1.23
Rules 0.10 0.08 1.11 0.95 1.30
Consequences 0.01 0.05 0.99 0.90 1.09
Cannabis and Alcohol use (n =29) vs non-use (n =236)
Age 0.94 0.15 2.56
1.89 3.45
Communication 0.13 0.09 0.88 0.74 1.04
Social Support 0.10 0.10 1.13 0.91 1.39
Conict 0.07 0.08 1.07 0.92 1.24
Rules 0.24 0.13 1.29 0.98 1.68
Consequences 0.18 0.08 0.83* 0.71 0.97
Cannabis and Alcohol use (n =29) vs only alcohol use (n =111)
Age 0.21 0.15 1.23 0.92 1.64
Communication 0.01 0.08 0.99 0.85 1.18
Social Support 0.02 0.10 1.03 0.84 1.25
Conict 0.06 0.07 1.06 0.91 1.22
Rules 0.16 0.13 1.18 0.91 1.52
Consequences 0.17 0.08 0.84* 0.72 0.98
Note. Model t: R
=0.312 (Cox & Snell), 0.381 (Nagelkerke). Model
(12) =
140.345, p < 0.001.
OR =odds ratio; CI =condence interval; SE =standard error.
*p <0.05, **p <0.01, ***p <0.001.
D. Eslava et al.
Addictive Behaviors 146 (2023) 107798
outcomes in young women. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 101(12), 812. https://
Al-Halabí Díaz, S., & P´
erez, J. M. (2009). Use of small incentives for increasing
participation and reducing dropout in a family drug-use prevention program in a
Spanish sample. Substance Use & Misuse, 44(14), 19902000.
Ballester, L., Amer, J., S´
anchez-Prieto, L., & Valero de Vicente, M. (2021). Universal
family drug prevention programs. A systematic review. Journal of Evidence-Based
Social Work, 18(2), 192213.
Banks, D. E., Hershberger, A. R., Pemberton, T., Clifton, R. L., Aalsma, M. C., &
Zapolski, T. C. B. (2019). Poly-use of cannabis and other substances among juvenile-
justice involved youth: Variations in psychological and substance-related problems
by typology. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 45(3), 313322. https://
Belanger, R. E., Marclay, F., Berchtold, A., Saugy, M., Cornuz, J., & Suris, J. C. (2013). To
what extent does adding tobacco to cannabis expose young users to nicotine?
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15, 18321838.
Best, D. W., Wilson, A. S., MacLean, S., Savic, M., Reed, M., Bruun, A., & Lubman, D. I.
(2014). Patterns of family conict and their impact on substance use and
psychosocial outcomes in a sample of young people in treatment. Vulnerable Children
and Youth Studies, 9(2), 114122.
Bireda, A. D., & Pillay, J. (2018). Perceived parent-child communication and well-being
among Ethiopian adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 23(1),
ere, F. N., Fallu, J. S., Descheneaux, A., & Janosz, M. (2011). Predictors and
consequences of simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use in adolescents. Addictive
Behaviors, 36(7), 785788.
Cambron, C., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Guttmannova, K., & Hawkins, J. D. (2018).
Neighborhood, family, and peer factors associated with early adolescent smoking
and alcohol use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(2), 369382.
Chen, X., Cai, Z., He, J., & Fan, X. (2019). Gender differences in life satisfaction among
children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies. https://doi.
Cox, M. J., Janssen, T., Lopez-Vergara, H., Barnett, N. P., & Jackson, K. M. (2018).
Parental drinking as context for parental socialization of adolescent alcohol use.
Journal of Adolescence, 69, 2232.
Cutrín, O., G´
omez-Fraguela, J. A., & Sobral, J. (2017). Gender differences in youth
substance use: The effects of parenting through a deviant peer group. Journal of Child
& Adolescent Substance Abuse, 26(6), 472781.
Díaz-Mesa, E. M., García-Portilla, P., Fern´
andez-Artamendi, S., S´
aiz, P. A., Bobes
an, T., Casares, M. J., Fonseca, E., Al-Halabí, S., & Bobes, J. (2016). Gender
differences in addiction severity. Diferencias de g´
enero en la gravedad de la
on. Adicciones, 28(4), 221230. 10.20882/adicciones.829.
Elam, K. K., Chassin, L., & Pandika, D. (2018). Polygenic risk, fammily cohesi´
on, and
adolesent agresi´
on in Mexican American and European American families:
Developmental pathways to alcohol use. Development and Psychopathology, 30,
Elsayed, N. M., Kim, M. J., Fields, K. M., Olvera, R. L., Hariri, A. R., & Williamson, D. E.
(2018). Trajectories of alcohol initiation and use during adolescence: The role of
stress and amygdala reactivity. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 57(8), 550560.
Errasti P´
erez, J. M., Al-Halabí Díaz, S., Secades Villa, R., Fern´
andez Hermida, J. R.,
Carballo Crespo, J. L., & García Rodríguez, O. (2009). Prevenci´
on familiar del
consumo de drogas: El programa «Familias que funcionan». Psicothema, 21(1),
Eslava, D., Martínez-Vispo, C., Villanueva-Blasco, V. J., Errasti, J. M., & Al-Halabí, S.
(2022). Family conict and the use of conventional and electronic cigarettes in
adolescence: The role of impulsivity traits. International Journal of Mental Health and
andez-Artamendi, S., Martínez-Loredo, V., & L´
nez, C. (2022). Tratamiento
ogico en adolescentes. In R. Secades-Villa, G. García-Fern´
andez, and S.
andez-Artamendi (Coords.), Manual de conductas adictivas: Teoría, evaluaci´
on y
tratamiento. Pir´
andez-Artamendi, S., Martínez-Loredo, V., & L´
nez, C. (2021). Sex
differences in comorbidity between substance use and mental health in adolescents:
Two sides of the same coin. Psicothema, 33(1), 3643.
Fonseca-Pedrero, E., P´
Alvarez, M., Al-Halabí, S., Inchausti, F., L´
opez-Navarro, E. R.,
niz, J., Montoya-Castilla, I. (2021). Psicothema, 33(3), 386398. https://doi.
alez-Roz, A., Martínez-Loredo, V., Maalouf, W., Fern´
andez-Hermida, J. R., & Al-
Halabí, S. (2023). Protocol for a trial assessing the efcacy of a universal school-
based prevention program for addictive behaviors. Psicothema, 35(1), 4149.
Green, K. M., Musci, R. J., Matson, P. A., Johnson, R. M., Reboussin, B. A., &
Ialongo, N. S. (2017). Developmental patterns of adolescent marijuana and alcohol
use and their joint association with sexual risk behavior and outcomes in young
adulthood. Journal of Urban Health, 94(1), 115124.
Guo, X., Lv, B., Zhou, H., Liu, C., Liu, J., Jian, K., & Luo, L. (2018). Gender differences in
how family income and parental education relate to reading achievement in China:
The mediating role of parental expectation and parental involvement. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, Article 783.
Heerde, J. A., Bailey, J. A., Toumbourou, J. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2019). Longitudinal
associations between the adolescent family environment and young adult substance
use in Australia and the United States. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 110. https://doi.
andez-Serrano, O., Gras, M. E., Gacto, M., Brugarola, A., & Font-Mayolas, S. (2021).
Family climate and intention to use cannabis as predictors of cannabis use and
cannabis-related problems among young university students. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), Article 9308.
Hindocha, C., Freeman, T. P., Ferris, J. A., Lynskey, M. T., & Winstock, A. R. (2016). No
smoke without tobacco: A global overview of cannabis and tobacco routes of
administration and their association with intention to quit. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7.
Hou, Y., Benner, A. D., Kim, S. Y., Chen, S., Spitz, S., Shi, Y., & Beretvas, T. (2020).
Discordance in parents and adolescentsreports of parenting: A meta-analysis and
qualitative review. American Psychologist, 75(3), 329348.
Howe, N., Persram, R. K., & Bergeron, C. (2020). Sibling relationships in adolescence. In
The encyclopedia of child and adolescent development (pp. 114). doi: 10.1002/
Hummer, J. F., Tucker, J. S., Rodriguez, A., Davis, J. P., & DAmico, E. J. (2022). A
longitudinal study of alcohol and cannabis use in young adulthood: Exploring racial
and ethnic differences in the effects of peer and parental inuences from middle
adolescence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. doi: 10.15288/jsad.21-00050.
Kalmijn, M. (2022). Intergenerational transmission of health behaviors in a changing
demographic context: The case of smoking and alcohol consumption. Social Science
& Medicine, 296, Article 114736.
Kelley-Baker, T., Villavicencio, L., Arnold, L. S., Benson, A. J., Anorve, V., & Tefft, B. C.
(2021). Risky driving behaviors of drivers who use alcohol and cannabis.
Transportation Research Record, 2675(5), 339344.
Kilwein, T. M., Wedell, E., Herchenroeder, L., Bravo, A. J., & Alison, L. (2022).
A qualitative examination of college studentsperceptions of cannabis: Insights into
the normalization of cannabis use on a college campus. Journal of American College
Health, 10(3), 733741.
Kyrrestad, H., Mabille, G., Adolfsen, F., Koposov, R., & Martinussen, M. (2022). Gender
differences in alcohol onset and drinking frequency in adolescents: An application of
the theory of planned behavior. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 29(1), 2131.
Lees, B., Debenham, J., & Squeglia, L. M. (2021). Alcohol and cannabis use and the
developing brain. Alcohol Research, 4(1), 11.
Merrin, G. J., Thompson, K., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2018). Transitions in the use of multiple
substances from adolescence to young adulthood. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 189,
Miller, S., Siegel, J. T., & Crano, W. D. (2017). Parents inuence on childrens cannabis
use. In Handbook of cannabis and related pathologies (pp. 215222). doi: 10.1016/
Moore, G. F., Cox, R., Evans, R. E., Hallingberg, B., Hawkins, J., Littlecott, H. J.,
Long, S. J., & Murphy, S. (2018). School, peer and family relationships and
adolescent substance use, subjective wellbeing and mental health symptoms in
Wales: A cross sectional study. Child Indicators Research, 11(6), 19511965. https://
Morell-Gomis, R., García, J. A., G´
azquez, M., & García, ´
A. (2011). Cuestionario para la
on de variables familiares relacionadas con el consumo de drogas en
estudiantes universitarios. Salud y Drogas, 11(2), 143162.
Moss, H. B., Chen, C. M., & Yi, H. Y. (2014). Early adolescent patterns of alcohol,
cigarettes, andmarijuana polysubstance use and young adult substance use outcomes
in a nationally representative sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 136, 5162.
Naldini, M., Satta, C., & Ghigi, R. (2018). Doing family through gender, doing gender
through family. Exploring social inequalities and cultural changes in everyday
parenting. An introduction. Sociología, 12(3).
Nelson, K. M., Carey, K. B., Scott-Sheldon, L., Eckert, T. L., Park, A., Vanable, P. A.,
Ewart, C. K., & Carey, M. P. (2017). Gender differences in relations among perceived
family characteristics and risky health behaviors in urban adolescents. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 51(3), 416422.
Observatorio Espa˜
nol de las Drogas y de las Adicciones (2014). Encuesta estatal sobre uso
de Drogas en ense˜
nanzas secundarias (ESTUDES) 2012. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad,
Servicios Sociales e Igualdad.
Observatorio Espa˜
nol de las Drogas y de las Adicciones (2021). Encuesta estatal sobre uso
de Drogas en ense˜
nanzas secundarias (ESTUDES) 2021. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad,
Servicios Sociales e Igualdad.
Ohannessian, C. M., Flannery, K., Simpson, E., & Russell, B. S. (2016). Family functioning
and adolescent alcohol use: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Adolescence,
49, 1927.
Patrick, M. E., Terry-McElrath, Y. M., Lee, C. M., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2018).
Simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use among underage young adults in the United
States. Addictive Behaviors, 88, 7781.
Pedersen, E. R., Tucker, J. S., Seelam, R., Rodriguez, A., & DAmico, E. J. (2019). Factors
associated with acquiring a medical Marijuana card: A longitudinal examination of
young adults in California. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 80(6), 687692.
Ryan, S. M., Jorm, A. F., & Lubman, D. I. (2010). Parenting factors associated with
reduced adolescent alcohol use: A systematic review of longitudinal studies.
D. Eslava et al.
Addictive Behaviors 146 (2023) 107798
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44(9), 774778.
Stamates, A. L., Roberts, R., & Lau-Barraco, C. (2021). Alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco
polysubstance use: A latent prole analysis of age of onset. Substance Abuse, 18.
Stevens, A. K., Drohan, M. M., Boyle, H. K., White, H. R., & Jackson, K. M. (2021). More
reasons, more use and problems? Examining the inuence of number of motives on
consumption and consequences across alcohol-only, cannabis-only, and
simultaneous-use days. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 82(6), 782791. 10
Subbaraman, M. S., & Kerr, W. C. (2015). Simultaneous versus concurrent use of alcohol
and cannabis in the national alcohol survey. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental
Research, 39(5), 872879.
Sumskas, L., & Zaborskis, A. (2017). Family social environment and parenting predictors
of alcohol use among adolescents in Lithuania. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 14(9).
Terry-McElrath, Y. M., OMalley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., Bray, B. C., Patrick, M. E., &
Schulenberg, J. E. (2017). Longitudinal patterns of marijuana use across ages 1850
in a US national sample: A descriptive examination of predictors and health
correlates of repeated measures latent class membership. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 171, 7083.
Thomas, S. A., Micalizzi, L., Meisel, S. N., Price, D., & Spirito, A. (2022). Adolescent
sibling associations among alcohol, cannabis, and sexual risk behavior: A test of
interdependence. Substance Use & Misuse, 57(10), 15721580.
Thompson, K., Holley, M., Sturgess, C., & Leadbeater, B. (2021). Co-use of alcohol and
cannabis: Longitudinal associations with mental health outcomes in young
adulthood. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18,
Tomczyk, S., Isensee, B., & Hanewinkel, R. (2016). Latent classes of polysubstance use
among adolescents - a systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 160, 1229.
Trujillo, A., Obando, D., & Trujillo, C. A. (2016). Family dynamics and alcohol and
marijuana use among adolescents: The mediating role of negative emotional
symptoms and sensation seeking. Addictive Behaviors, 62, 99107.
Turner, S., Mota, N., Bolton, J., & Sareen, J. (2018). Self-medication with alcohol or
drugs for mood and anxiety disorders: A narrative review of the epidemiological
literature. Depression and Anxiety, 35(9), 851860.
azquez-Reyes, A., Martín-Rodríguez, A., P´
erez-San-Gregorio, M. A., & V´
on, A. J. (2021). Gender Inuence on severe Mental Disorders: Relationship
between Behavior Problems and Family Burden. Clinical and Health, 32(2), 6570.
Wardell, J. D., Egerton, G. A., & Read, J. P. (2020). Does cannabis use predict more
severe types of alcohol consequences? Longitudinal associations in a 3-year study of
college students. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 44(5), 11411150.
Weymouth, B. B., Buehler, C., Zhou, N., & Henson, R. A. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of
ParentAdolescent Conict: Disagreement, Hostility, and Youth Maladjustment.
J Fam Theory Rev, 8, 95112.
World Health Organization. (2018). Global status report on alcohol and health. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Xia, M., Fosco, G. M., & Feinberg, M. E. (2016). Examining reciprocal inuences among
family climate, school attachment, and academic self-regulation: Implications for
school success. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 442452.
Xia, M., Weymouth, B. B., Bray, B. C., Lippold, M. A., Feinberg, M. E., & Fosco, G. M.
(2019). Exploring triadic family relationship proles and their implications for
adolescentsearly substance initiation. Prevention Science.
Yap, M. B. H., Cheong, T. W. K., Zaravinos-Tsakos, F., Lubman, D. I., & Jorm, A. F.
(2017). Modiable parenting factors associated with adolescent alcohol misuse: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Addiction, 112(7).
Yurasek, A. M., Aston, E. R., & Metrik, J. (2017). Co-use of alcohol and cannabis: A
review. Current Addiction Reports, 4(2), 184193.
Zuckermann, A. M. E., Williams, G. C., Battista, K., Jiang, Y., de Groh, M., &
Leatherdale, S. T. (2020). Prevalence and correlates of youth poly-substance use in
the COMPASS study. Addictive Behaviors, 107, Article 106400.
D. Eslava et al.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Background: "Juego de Llaves" [ Set of Keys ] is a universal school-based prevention program for adolescents aged 12-15. It is aimed at reducing drug use and other addictive behaviors. This paper describes the full protocol for the evaluation design, instruments, randomization procedure, follow-ups, and primary outcomes. Method: Non-Randomized Control Cluster Trial in a set of Spanish secondary schools, with follow-ups at 12-, 24- and 36-months. Participants will be allocated to an experimental or control group. Using a digital application designed for the study, a battery of instruments will be used to assess addictive behaviors, sociodemographic variables, school climate and other transdiagnostic psychological variables. Results: A pilot test will be carried out to test the implementation protocol and to calculate the sample size needed for outcome evaluation. After implementing the program, longitudinal statistical approaches will be used to report intervention efficacy and potential moderators and mediators. Conclusions: There is a lack of assessments on the effectiveness of school prevention programs, and this paper is expected to improve monitoring and ongoing evaluation in prevention.
Full-text available
Adolescents' use of tobacco is a worldwide problem due to the negative consequences on their physical and psychosocial development. One contextual variable related to tobacco use is family conflict. Previous research has suggested that the relationship between family conflict and tobacco use could be mediated by personality traits. The aim of this study is to examine the direct and indirect effects of family conflict on tobacco use (conventional and electronic cigarettes) through specific impulsivity constructs. The sample comprised 879 adolescents (56.4% male; M(SD)age = 14.25 (1.88) years). Multiple mediational analysis showed that there was no significant direct effect between family conflict and tobacco use; however, an indirect effect was found between family conflict and conventional cigarette use through sensation seeking and premeditation. With electronic cigarettes, a significant indirect effect was found via sensation seeking. These findings have implications in terms of prevention and treatment of tobacco use during adolescence.
Full-text available
Determining the predictive variables associated with cannabis use and cannabis-related problems can ease the identification of young cannabis consumers who can benefit from prevention interventions. This study aimed: (1) to describe, among university students, the cannabis use and cannabis-use problems, intention to use cannabis and family climate based on the gender and the people the student lives with; (2) to explore whether the family climate and intention to use cannabis are predictors of cannabis use and cannabis-related problems. The sample was composed of 339 Spanish undergraduates (51.9% females) in a 17-to-25 age range (19.67 ± 1.53). The variables were assessed through a battery based on the ESPAD survey, cannabis abuse screening test, cannabis use intention questionnaire and family climate scale. More men than women had used cannabis in the precedent year and showed greater intention to use cannabis, whereas more women than men showed greater self-efficacy in not using cannabis. The family climate did not predict cannabis use and cannabis-related problems. However, subjective norms and self-efficacy were key predictors of cannabis use and cannabis-use problems, respectively. Different factors seemed to predict the use cannabis in the past year versus cannabis-related problems, and these differences may help inform the development and delivery of preventative efforts.
Full-text available
Background: The empirical evidence accumulated on the efficacy, effectiveness, and efficiency of psychotherapeutic treatments in children and adolescents calls for an update. The main goal of this paper objective was to carry out a selective review of empirically supported psychological treatments for a variety of common psychological disorders and problems in childhood and adolescence. Method: A review was carried out of the psychological treatments for different psychological disorders and problems in socialemotional or behavioral adjustment in the child-adolescent population according to the Spanish National Health System (Clinical Practice Guidelines) levels of evidence and degrees of recommendation. Results: The findings suggest that psychological treatments have empirical support for addressing a wide range of psychological problems in these developmental stages. The degree of empirical support ranges from low to high depending on the phenomenon analyzed. The review suggests unequal progress in the different fields of intervention. Conclusions: From this update, psychologists will be able to make informed decisions when implementing those empirically supported treatments to address the problems that occur in childhood and adolescence.
Objective: This study assessed how changes from middle adolescence to young adulthood in peer and parental influences relate to frequency of alcohol and cannabis use in young adulthood and evaluated the differences between three racial/ethnic groups. Method: The analytic sample (n = 2,808; 52.9% female; 54% Hispanic, 22.9% White, 23.1% Asian/Pacific Islander) was derived from a longitudinal cohort initially recruited from 16 middle schools in Southern California who completed annual surveys. Data were collected across six waves beginning in Spring 2013 (mean age = 16.2) through Spring 2019 (mean age = 21.6). Results: Multigroup latent growth models revealed consistent increases during adolescence and young adulthood in perceived peer and parental approval of alcohol and cannabis and in the amount of time spent around peers who used these substances. After we controlled for prior use, these increases related to alcohol and cannabis use at age 21, with few exceptions. The time spent around peers most strongly influenced later cannabis use for Hispanic young adults, whereas the influence of peer approval on later alcohol and cannabis use, and parental approval on later alcohol use, was strongest among White young adults. Conclusions: The frequency of alcohol and cannabis use in young adulthood was shaped, in part, from increases in direct and indirect peer influence and perceived parental approval of substance use across two important developmental periods. The findings highlight the importance of early and sustained intervention efforts targeting these social influences, especially among White adolescents, which may potentially decrease alcohol and cannabis use as youth enter young adulthood.
Background: Although siblings are conceptualized as a salient social influence during adolescence, few studies have examined how adolescent siblings influence each other's substance use and risky sexual behavior. Objectives: In this study, we investigated the influence of alcohol use days, cannabis use days, and cannabis and alcohol co-use days on the sexual risk behavior of siblings while accounting for dyadic influence. Methods: At the baseline visit for a randomized controlled trial for adolescents referred due to parents' concerns about their substance use ("referred adolescents"; n = 99; Mage=15.95; 38.38% female), we assessed alcohol and cannabis use days as well as sexual risk behavior of the referred adolescents and their sibling (Mage=15.03; 51.52% female). We computed the number of days in the 30 days prior to the baseline that alcohol and cannabis use occurred on the same day. Using a cross-sectional actor partner interdependence model, we tested two models of how adolescents' substance use is associated with their own ("actor effect") and their siblings' ("partner effect") sexual risk behavior-one model for alcohol and cannabis use, and one model for daily co-use. Results: For referred adolescents and their siblings, within an individual, greater alcohol, cannabis, and daily co-use was significantly associated with sexual risk behavior (actor effects). Furthermore, more sibling co-use days was positively associated with referred adolescent sexual risk behavior (partner effect), representing interdependence. Conclusion: These findings confirm the influence siblings have on one another's risky behavior in adolescence and have implications for prevention and intervention efforts for adolescent substance use.
Many studies have documented that health behaviors are transmitted from parents to children. Due to the rise in divorce and remarriage, the context of intergenerational transmission has changed. Using a national multi-actor survey from the Netherlands, the impact of parents' health behaviors on children was compared in different types of families. The focus was on smoking and alcohol consumption of adult children (25–45) in relation to the same health behaviors of multiple parent figures when the children were growing up. Analyses show that the influence of divorced fathers was smaller than that of married fathers. Stepfathers had a significant influence on children as well, on top of the effects of the biological parents. The impact of both divorced fathers and stepfathers was moderated by their involvement in the child's life after divorce. The overall transmission of health behaviors was smaller in single-parent families but larger in stepfamilies.
Objective: Alcohol and cannabis use as well as their simultaneous use are common among U.S. college students. Reasons for use are proximal predictors of consumption and consequences. Little research has examined possible adverse effects of endorsing multiple motives on a given use day. We examined the effects of the number of motives on consumption and negative consequences for alcohol-only, cannabis-only, and simultaneous-use days. Method: College students (N = 341; 53% women; mean age = 19.79 years) who reported past-month simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use completed 54 days of data collection. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models to examine the effects of endorsing multiple motives on consumption and consequences. Results: Across models, endorsing more motives than typical on a given use day (within person) and more motives in general (between person) was related to greater alcohol and cannabis consumption. Endorsing more alcohol-only motives and cannabis-only motives than typical resulted in greater odds of experiencing a negative consequence when accounting for consumption. This within-person effect was not statistically significant for simultaneous-use motives/consequences. Endorsing a greater number of motives across the study (i.e., between person) was not significantly related to consequences beyond consumption. Conclusions: Research has documented the robust effects of specific motives on substance use outcomes. Our novel findings extend this work by demonstrating the risks associated with endorsing multiple motives on a given use day. In addition to motive type, we recommend that the number of motives endorsed on a given day be considered as a potential risk factor to be targeted to reduce harms associated with substance use.
Background: Despite understanding the long-term risks associated with early substance use, less is known about the specific patterns of the age of onset (AO) across multiple substances and whether these patterns of early exposure are linked to substance use later in young adulthood. Consequently, the present study sought to (1) identify distinct classes regarding AO for alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco and (2) compare these classes on patterns of individual and simultaneous alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco use, other substance use, and mental health symptoms. Methods: Participants were 510 emerging adults (Mage = 21.35; 88.6% men) who reported past-year use of alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco. Results: Latent profile analysis was used to identify classes based on three indicators: AO for alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco. Results revealed that four classes best fit the data: Earliest AO for Alcohol (19.8%); Latest AO for Substances (6.5%); Late AO for Substances (67.8%); Earliest AO for Cannabis and Tobacco (5.9%). Classes varied on current patterns of individual substance use, co-use of substances, other illicit drug use, and mental health symptomology. The Latest AO of Substances class reported the lowest alcohol use, cannabis use, other illicit drug use, and mental health symptomology than the other classes. The Earliest AO for Alcohol and the Late AO of Substances reported a lower frequency of tobacco compared to the other classes. The Late AO of Substance class reported the highest past-year frequency of simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use. Conclusions: The current study contributed to the larger polysubstance literature by identifying profiles that may signify risky patterns of use. Findings may help guide prevention and intervention work with adolescents and young adults.