Schedule:
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Seacliff B (Hyatt Regency San Francisco)
* noted as presenting author
Hilary F. Byrnes, PhD,
Associate Research Scientist, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Berkeley, CA
Brenda A. Miller, PhD, Senior Research Scientist, PIRE, Oakland, CA
Douglas J Wiebe, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Christopher N Morrison, MPH, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Marcie Woychik, n/a, Research Assistant, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Oakland, CA
Sarah Wiehe, PhD, Associate Professor, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN
Introduction: Archival indicators of contextual risk (e.g., alcohol outlets; census-based indicators) have been associated with adolescent risk behavior, such as alcohol use and delinquency (e.g., Cook et al., 2015; Treno et al., 2008; Wright et al., 2014). Additionally, some studies have found adolescents’ perceptions of contextual risks related to their risk behavior (e.g., Fite et al. 2010; Friese et al 2015). Adolescents' perceptions may provide more accurate appraisals of risks than appraisals by researchers (Burton & Price-Spratlen, 1999). However, few studies have examined the comparative influence of archival indicators and perceived contextual risks on adolescent risk behavior. In addition, most studies have measured contextual risk exposure using administrative units around adolescents’ homes (Basta et al., 2010), which may not reflect where they spend time (Kwan, 2012). Activity space, the geographic area where individuals spend time during daily activities (Gesler & Meade, 1988), may be a better measure of contextual risks (Kwan, 2012). This study compares archival indicators vs perceptions of contextual risks to determine which indicators are best at predicting teen alcohol use and delinquency.
Methods: These findings are based upon the first 29 participants of an ongoing study of adolescents aged 14-16 (53.6% female). Participants carried GPS-enabled smartphones for one month, during which their locations were documented. Activity spaces were created by connecting GPS points sequentially and adding spatial buffers (50m) around their routes. Archival measures included alcohol outlet and social disorganization data (a census-based SES index), which were appended to routes. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) was used to assess teens’ perceptions through responses to periodic texts regarding their current risk behaviors and perceptions of their immediate environment.
Results: Controlling for ethnicity and gender, multivariable analyses showed that adolescents’ perceptions of greater disorganization in their activity spaces significantly predicted greater alcohol use, while archival indicators of disorganization were unrelated to alcohol use. The percent of texts in which adolescents reported noticing alcohol outlets was significantly related to alcohol use, while counts from archival outlet data of on- and off-premise outlets in activity spaces were unrelated. Neither perceptions nor archival indicators of disorganization were related to delinquency, but perceptions of alcohol outlets and counts of off-premise outlets in activity spaces were both significantly related to greater delinquency.
Conclusions: Findings suggest the importance of considering adolescents’ perceptions of contextual risk along with archival data, in understanding the influence of risk behavior.