A longitudinal study of factors explaining attitude change towards gambling among adolescents

Background and aims: No previous study has investigated changes in attitudes toward gambling from under legal gambling age to legal gambling age. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate attitudinal changes during this transition and to identify predictors of corresponding attitude change. Methods: In all 1239 adolescents from a national representative sample participated in two survey waves (Wave 1; 17.5 years; Wave 2; 18.5 years). Results: From Wave 1 to Wave 2 the sample became more acceptant toward gambling. A regression analysis showed that when controlling for attitudes toward gambling at Wave 1 males developed more acceptant attitudes than females. Neuroticism was inversely related to development of acceptant attitudes toward gambling from Wave 1 to Wave 2, whereas approval of gambling by close others at Wave 1 was positively associated with development of more acceptant attitudes. Continuous or increased participation in gambling was related to development of more acceptant attitudes from Wave 1 to Wave 2. Conclusions: Attitudes toward gambling became more acceptant when reaching legal gambling age. Male gender, approval of gambling by close others and gambling participation predicted development of positive attitudes toward gambling whereas neuroticism was inversely related to development of positive attitudes toward gambling over time

Feasibility of Screening Adolescents for Suicide Risk in “Real-World” High School Settings

Objectives. We evaluated the feasibility of a population-based approach to preventing adolescent suicide. Methods. A total of 1323 students in 10 high schools completed the Suicide Risk Screen. Screening results, student follow-up, staff feedback, and school responses were assessed. Results. Overall, 29% of the participants were rated as at risk of suicide. As a result of this overwhelming percentage, school staffs chose to discontinue the screening after 2 semesters. In further analyses, about half of the students identified were deemed at high risk on the basis of high levels of depression, suicidal ideation, or suicidal behavior. Priority rankings evidenced good construct validity on correlates such as drug use, hopelessness, and perceived family support. Conclusions. A simpler, more specific screening instrument than the Suicide Risk Screen would identify approximately 11% of urban high school youths for assessment, offering high school officials an important opportunity to identify young people at the greatest levels of need and to target scarce health resources. Our experiences from this study show that lack of feasibility testing greatly contributes to the gap between science and practice

Efficacy vs Effectiveness Trial Results of an Indicated “Model” Substance Abuse Program: Implications for Public Health

Objectives. The US Department of Education requires schools to choose substance abuse and violence prevention programs that meet standards of effectiveness. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency certifies “model” programs that meet this standard. We compared findings from a large, multisite effectiveness trial of 1 model program to its efficacy trial findings, upon which the certification was based. Methods. 1370 high-risk youths were randomized to experimental or control groups across 9 high schools in 2 large urban school districts. We used intent-to-treat and on-treatment approaches to examine baseline equivalence, attrition, and group differences in outcomes at the end of the program and at a 6-month follow-up. Results. Positive efficacy trial findings were not replicated in the effectiveness trial. All main effects were either null or worse for the experimental than for the control group. Conclusions. These findings suggest that small efficacy trials conducted by developers provide insufficient evidence of effectiveness. Federal agencies and public health scientists must work together to raise the standards of evidence and ensure that data from new trials are incorporated into ongoing assessments of program effects

Assessing the Effects of Medical Marijuana Laws on Marijuana Use: The Devil is in the Details

This paper sheds light on previous inconsistencies identified in the literature regarding the relationship between medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and recreational marijuana use by closely examining the importance of policy dimensions (registration requirements, home cultivation, dispensaries) and the timing of when particular policy dimensions are enacted. Using data from our own legal analysis of state MMLs, we evaluate which features are associated with adult and youth recreational and heavy use by linking these policy variables to data from the Treatment Episodes Data System (TEDS) and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97). We employ differences-in-differences techniques, controlling for state and year fixed effects, allowing us to exploit within-state policy changes. We find that while simple dichotomous indicators of MML laws are not positively associated with marijuana use or abuse, such measures hide the positive influence legal dispensaries have on adult and youth use, particularly heavy use. Sensitivity analyses that help address issues of policy endogeneity and actual implementation of dispensaries support our main conclusion that not all MML laws are the same. Dimensions of these policies, in particular legal protection of dispensaries, can lead to greater recreational marijuana use and abuse among adults and those under the legal age of 21 relative to medical marijuana laws without this supply source

Differences in Opinions About Marijuana Use and Prevalence of Use by State Legalization Status

ObjectiveBeliefs about marijuana use and prevalence of use may be associated with the legalization status of the state of residence. We examined differences in views and rates of use of marijuana among residents in recreationally legal, medically legal, and nonlegal states.MethodsWe surveyed a nationally representative online panel of US adults (N = 16,280) and stratified results by marijuana legalization status of states. We compared views of residents of recreational states on benefits and risks of marijuana use to residents in other states.ResultsThe response rate was 56.3% (n = 9003). Residents in recreationally legal states were more likely to believe marijuana could be beneficial for pain management (73% in recreationally legal states, 67% in medically legal states, 63% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001), provide relief from stress, anxiety or depression (52% in recreationally legal states, 47% in medically legal states, 46% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.01), and improve appetite (39% in recreationally legal states, 36% in medically legal states, 33% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.009). In addition, residents in recreational states were significantly more likely to believe that smoking 1 marijuana joint a day is somewhat or much safer than smoking 1 cigarette a day (40.8% in recreationally legal states, 39.1% in medically legal states, and 36.1% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001). Residents of recreationally and medically legal states were more likely to believe second-hand marijuana smoke was somewhat or much safer than second-hand tobacco smoke (38.3% in recreationally legal states, 38.3% in medically legal states, and 35.7% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.003). Past-year marijuana use in any form (20% in recreational, 14.1% in medical, 12% in nonlegal) and past-year marijuana use of multiple forms (11.1% in recreational, 6.1% in medical, 4.9% in nonlegal) were highest among residents of recreationally legal states. Overall, prevalence of past-year use of any form of marijuana use was more common among residents of recreationally legal states compared with other states (20.3%, confidence interval [CI] 19.5, 21.1 in recreationally legal states; 15.4%, CI 14.7, 16.2 in medically legal states; 11.9%, CI 11.2, 12.6 in nonlegal states).ConclusionsResidents in recreationally legal states were most likely to believe marijuana has benefits, marijuana smoke is safer than tobacco smoke, and have the highest rate of marijuana use. This is cause for concern, given the tide of commercialization, growing number of high-potency cannabis products, and favorable media coverage promoting use for health problems