Testing socioeconomic status and family socialization hypotheses of alcohol use in young people: A causal mediation analysis

Introduction: The effect of socioeconomic status on adolescent substance abuse may be mediated by family socialization practices. However, traditional mediation analysis using a product or difference method is susceptible to bias when assumptions are not addressed. We aimed to use a potential outcomes framework to assess assumptions of exposure‐mediator interaction and of no confounding of the results. Method: We revisited a traditional mediation analysis with a multiple mediator causal mediation approach using data from 17,761 Norwegian young people (13–18 years), 51% female. Data were collected through a print questionnaire. Socioeconomic status was operationalized as parental education and employment status (employed or receiving welfare); drinking behavior as the frequency of alcohol consumption and frequency of intoxication in the past year; and socialization practices as general parenting measures, alcohol‐related parental permissiveness, and parent drinking behavior. Results: There was no consistent evidence of exposure‐mediator interaction. Formal sensitivity analysis of mediator‐outcome confounding was not possible in the multiple mediator model, and this analysis supported the hypothesis that socioeconomic status effects on adolescent substance abuse are fully mediated by family socialization practices, with apparently stronger effects in younger age groups observed in plots. Conclusion: We found that the effect of socioeconomic status on adolescent substance abuse was fully mediated by family socialization practices. While our analysis provides more rigorous support for causal inferences than past work, we could not completely rule out the possibility of unmeasured confounding

The Good Behaviour Game intervention to improve behavioural and other outcomes for children aged 7-8 years: A cluster RCT

Background. Universal, school-based behaviour management interventions can produce meaningful improvements in children’s behaviour and other outcomes. However, the UK evidence base for these remains limited. Objective. The objective of this trial was to investigate the impact, value for money and longer-term outcomes of the Good Behaviour Game. Study hypotheses centred on immediate impact (hypothesis 1); subgroup effects (at-risk boys, hypothesis 2); implementation effects (dosage, hypothesis 3); maintenance/sleeper effects (12- and 24-month post-intervention follow-ups, hypothesis 4); the temporal association between mental health and academic attainment (hypothesis 5); and the health economic impact of the Good Behaviour Game (hypothesis 6). Design. This was a two-group, parallel, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary schools (n = 77) were randomly assigned to implement the Good Behaviour Game for 2 years or continue their usual practice, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period. Setting. The trial was set in primary schools across 23 local authorities in England. Participants. Participants were children (n = 3084) aged 7–8 years attending participating schools. Intervention. The Good Behaviour Game is a universal behaviour management intervention. Its core components are classroom rules, team membership, monitoring behaviour and positive reinforcement. It is played alongside a normal classroom activity for a set time, during which children work in teams to win the game to access the agreed rewards. The Good Behaviour Game is a manualised intervention delivered by teachers who receive initial training and ongoing coaching. Main outcome measures. The measures were conduct problems (primary outcome; teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); emotional symptoms (teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); psychological well-being, peer and social support, bullying (i.e. social acceptance) and school environment (self-report Kidscreen survey results); and school absence and exclusion from school (measured using National Pupil Database records). Measures of academic attainment (reading, standardised tests), disruptive behaviour, concentration problems and prosocial behaviour (Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Checklist scores) were also collected during the 2-year follow-up period. Results. There was no evidence that the Good Behaviour Game improved any outcomes (hypothesis 1). The only significant subgroup moderator effect identified was contrary to expectations: at-risk boys in Good Behaviour Game schools reported higher rates of bullying (hypothesis 2). The moderating effect of the amount of time spent playing the Good Behaviour Game was unclear; in the context of both moderate (≥ 1030 minutes over 2 years) and high (≥ 1348 minutes over 2 years) intervention compliance, there were significant reductions in children’s psychological well-being, but also significant reductions in their school absence (hypothesis 3). The only medium-term intervention effect was for peer and social support at 24 months, but this was in a negative direction (hypothesis 4). After disaggregating within- and between-individual effects, we found no temporal within-individual associations between children’s mental health and their academic attainment (hypothesis 5). Last, our cost–consequences analysis indicated that the Good Behaviour Game does not provide value for money (hypothesis 6). Limitations. Limitations included the post-test-only design for several secondary outcomes; suboptimal implementation dosage (mitigated by complier-average causal effect estimation); and moderate child-level attrition (18.5% for the primary outcome analysis), particularly in the post-trial follow-up period (mitigated by the use of full information maximum likelihood procedures). Future work. Questions remain regarding programme differentiation (e.g. how distinct is the Good Behaviour Game from existing behaviour management practices, and does this makes a difference in terms of its impact?) and if the Good Behaviour Game is impactful when combined with a complementary preventative intervention (as has been the case in several earlier trials). Conclusion. The Good Behaviour Game cannot be recommended based on the findings reported here

Practicing food anxiety: Making Australian mothers responsible for their families’ dietary decisions

Concerns about the relationship between diet, weight, and health find widespread expression in the media and are accompanied by significant individual anxiety and responsibilization. However, these pertain especially to mothers, who undertake the bulk of domestic labor involved in managing their families’ health and wellbeing. This article employs the concept of anxiety as social practice to explore the process whereby mothers are made accountable for their families’ dietary decisions. Drawing on data from an Australian study that explored the impact of discourses of childhood obesity prevention on mothers, the article argues that mothers’ engagements with this value-laden discourse are complex and ambiguous, involving varying degrees of self-ascribed responsibility and blame for children's weight and diets. We conclude by drawing attention to the value of viewing food anxiety as social practice, in highlighting issues that are largely invisible in both official discourses and scholarly accounts of childhood obesity prevention

The CLIMATE schools combined study: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a universal Internet-based prevention program for youth substance misuse, depression and anxiety

Background: Anxiety, depressive and substance use disorders account for three quarters of the disability attributed to mental disorders and frequently co-occur. While programs for the prevention and reduction of symptoms associated with (i) substance use and (ii) mental health disorders exist, research is yet to determine if a combined approach is more effective. This paper describes the study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the CLIMATE Schools Combined intervention, a universal approach to preventing substance use and mental health problems among adolescents. Methods/design: Participants will consist of approximately 8400 students aged 13 to 14-years-old from 84 secondary schools in New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, Australia. The schools will be cluster randomised to one of four groups; (i) CLIMATE Schools Combined intervention; (ii) CLIMATE Schools - Substance Use; (iii) CLIMATE Schools - Mental Health, or (iv) Control (Health and Physical Education as usual). The primary outcomes of the trial will be the uptake and harmful use of alcohol and other drugs, mental health symptomatology and anxiety, depression and substance use knowledge. Secondary outcomes include substance use related harms, self-efficacy to resist peer pressure, general disability, and truancy. The link between personality and substance use will also be examined.Discussion: Compared to students who receive the universal CLIMATE Schools - Substance Use, or CLIMATE Schools - Mental Health or the Control condition (who received usual Health and Physical Education), we expect students who receive the CLIMATE Schools Combined intervention to show greater delays to the initiation of substance use, reductions in substance use and mental health symptoms, and increased substance use and mental health knowledge

The Griffiths Scales of Mental Development: a factorial validity study

Since the introduction of the Griffiths Scales of Mental Development (Griffiths Scales) to South Africa, extensive research has been conducted in both clinical and educational settings. The measure is currently undergoing revision, with one of the objectives being to explore its psychometric properties, in particular its construct validity. The aim of this study was to examine the underlying dimensions tapped by subscales A, B, C, D, E and F for years 5, 6 and 7. The sample consisted of 180 children between the ages of 48 and 60 months, 60+ and 72 months, and 72+ and 84 months for years 5, 6 and 7 respectively. The variables of gender, cultural group and central nervous system development were controlled for. Underlying factors in each subscale were identified by means of factor analysis. The findings suggest that each subscale taps more than one construct and that constructs differ for the different age groups. This implies that in the revision process subscales for each of the years need to be investigated further with regard to their construct validity

Testing socioeconomic status and family socialization hypotheses of alcohol use in young people: A causal mediation analysis

Introduction: The effect of socioeconomic status on adolescent substance abuse may be mediated by family socialization practices. However, traditional mediation analysis using a product or difference method is susceptible to bias when assumptions are not addressed. We aimed to use a potential outcomes framework to assess assumptions of exposure‐mediator interaction and of no confounding of the results. Method: We revisited a traditional mediation analysis with a multiple mediator causal mediation approach using data from 17,761 Norwegian young people (13–18 years), 51% female. Data were collected through a print questionnaire. Socioeconomic status was operationalized as parental education and employment status (employed or receiving welfare); drinking behavior as the frequency of alcohol consumption and frequency of intoxication in the past year; and socialization practices as general parenting measures, alcohol‐related parental permissiveness, and parent drinking behavior. Results: There was no consistent evidence of exposure‐mediator interaction. Formal sensitivity analysis of mediator‐outcome confounding was not possible in the multiple mediator model, and this analysis supported the hypothesis that socioeconomic status effects on adolescent substance abuse are fully mediated by family socialization practices, with apparently stronger effects in younger age groups observed in plots. Conclusion: We found that the effect of socioeconomic status on adolescent substance abuse was fully mediated by family socialization practices. While our analysis provides more rigorous support for causal inferences than past work, we could not completely rule out the possibility of unmeasured confounding

The Good Behaviour Game intervention to improve behavioural and other outcomes for children aged 7–8 years: a cluster RCT

Background. Universal, school-based behaviour management interventions can produce meaningful improvements in children’s behaviour and other outcomes. However, the UK evidence base for these remains limited. Objective. The objective of this trial was to investigate the impact, value for money and longer-term outcomes of the Good Behaviour Game. Study hypotheses centred on immediate impact (hypothesis 1); subgroup effects (at-risk boys, hypothesis 2); implementation effects (dosage, hypothesis 3); maintenance/sleeper effects (12- and 24-month post-intervention follow-ups, hypothesis 4); the temporal association between mental health and academic attainment (hypothesis 5); and the health economic impact of the Good Behaviour Game (hypothesis 6). Design. This was a two-group, parallel, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary schools (n = 77) were randomly assigned to implement the Good Behaviour Game for 2 years or continue their usual practice, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period. Setting. The trial was set in primary schools across 23 local authorities in England. Participants. Participants were children (n = 3084) aged 7–8 years attending participating schools. Intervention. The Good Behaviour Game is a universal behaviour management intervention. Its core components are classroom rules, team membership, monitoring behaviour and positive reinforcement. It is played alongside a normal classroom activity for a set time, during which children work in teams to win the game to access the agreed rewards. The Good Behaviour Game is a manualised intervention delivered by teachers who receive initial training and ongoing coaching. Main outcome measures. The measures were conduct problems (primary outcome; teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); emotional symptoms (teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); psychological well-being, peer and social support, bullying (i.e. social acceptance) and school environment (self-report Kidscreen survey results); and school absence and exclusion from school (measured using National Pupil Database records). Measures of academic attainment (reading, standardised tests), disruptive behaviour, concentration problems and prosocial behaviour (Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Checklist scores) were also collected during the 2-year follow-up period. Results. There was no evidence that the Good Behaviour Game improved any outcomes (hypothesis 1). The only significant subgroup moderator effect identified was contrary to expectations: at-risk boys in Good Behaviour Game schools reported higher rates of bullying (hypothesis 2). The moderating effect of the amount of time spent playing the Good Behaviour Game was unclear; in the context of both moderate (≥ 1030 minutes over 2 years) and high (≥ 1348 minutes over 2 years) intervention compliance, there were significant reductions in children’s psychological well-being, but also significant reductions in their school absence (hypothesis 3). The only medium-term intervention effect was for peer and social support at 24 months, but this was in a negative direction (hypothesis 4). After disaggregating within- and between-individual effects, we found no temporal within-individual associations between children’s mental health and their academic attainment (hypothesis 5). Last, our cost–consequences analysis indicated that the Good Behaviour Game does not provide value for money (hypothesis 6). Limitations. Limitations included the post-test-only design for several secondary outcomes; suboptimal implementation dosage (mitigated by complier-average causal effect estimation); and moderate child-level attrition (18.5% for the primary outcome analysis), particularly in the post-trial follow-up period (mitigated by the use of full information maximum likelihood procedures). Future work. Questions remain regarding programme differentiation (e.g. how distinct is the Good Behaviour Game from existing behaviour management practices, and does this makes a difference in terms of its impact?) and if the Good Behaviour Game is impactful when combined with a complementary preventative intervention (as has been the case in several earlier trials). Conclusion. The Good Behaviour Game cannot be recommended based on the findings reported here