Skip to main content

Table 2 Differences in risk and protective factor measures by AUDIT categories and illicit drug use

From: Prevalence and predictors of alcohol and drug use among secondary school students in Botswana: a cross-sectional study

  

Hazardous Drinkers

N = 434

Lower-risk Drinkers

N = 382

Non-drinkers

N = 1111

p-value*

Illicit drug use

N = 324

No illicit drug use

N = 1561

p-value*

 

Mean (SD) or N (%)

Mean (SD) or N (%)

Mean (SD) or N (%)

Mean (SD) or N (%)

 

Mean (SD) or N (%)

Mean (SD) or N (%)

 

Models Risk

 Sibling drinks alcohol

906 (47.4%)

259 (60.3%)

183 (48.3%)

463 (42.1%)

< 0.001

182 (57.1%)

709 (45.7%)

< 0.001

 Problem drinker at home

680 (36.2%)

199 (47.3%)

141 (37.9%)

339 (31.3%)

<.0.001

154 (49.4%)

516 (33.8%)

< 0.001

 Peer models risk (2 items)

0 (0.73)

0.43 (0.80)

−0.01 (0.72)

−0.16 (0.64)

< 0.001

0.35 (0.87)

−0.07 (0.68)

< 0.001

Vulnerability Risks

 Individual vulnerability risk (8 items)

−0.01 (0.58)

0.28 (0.67)

0.01 (0.54)

−0.13 (0.52)

< 0.001

0.36 (0.66)

−0.08 (0.53)

< 0.001

 Social vulnerability risk (3 items)

0 (0.77)

0.33 (0.76)

0.03 (0.75)

−0.14 (0.74)

< 0.001

0.38 (0.78)

−0.07 (0.75)

< 0.001

 Suicidal ideation (SI) in past year

381 (20.1%)

152 (36.3%)

75 (20.1%)

154 (14.0%)

< 0.001

118 (38.7%)

252 (16.3%)

< 0.001

Opportunity risk (4 items)

0 (0.72)

0.67 (0.93)

−0.02 (0.68)

−0.26(0.41)

< 0.001

0.67 (0.99)

−0.14 (0.55)

< 0.001

Alcohol availability at home

0 (1)

0.45 (1.39)

0.06 (1.11)

−0.20 (0.65)

< 0.001

0.49 (1.44)

−0.10 (0.84)

< 0.001

Alcohol availability at social gatherings (3 items)

0 (0.81)

0.88 (1.07)

−0.10 (0.58)

−0.31 (0.41)

< 0.001

0.85 (1.10)

−0.18 (0.60)

< 0.001

Support protection (6 items)

0 (0.55)

−0.09 (0.56)

−0.03 (0.55)

0.05 (0.54)

 

−0.15 (0.58)

0.03 (0.54)

< 0.001

Parental support (4 items)

0 (0.68)

−0.19 (0.69)

−0.09 (0.67)

0.10 (0.65)

< 0.001

−0.24 (0.68)

0.05 (0.66)

< 0.001

Controls protection

        

Individual controls protection (3 items)

0 (0.77)

−0.32 (0.96)

− 0.03 (0.75)

0.13 (0.65)

< 0.001

− 0.42 (0.94)

0.09 (0.68)

< 0.001

Social control protection (9 items)

0 (0.57)

−0.37 (0.60)

−0.04 (0.55)

0.16 (0.49)

< 0.001

−0.47 (0.59)

0.10 (0.51)

< 0.001

Models protection (4 items)

0 (0.62)

−0.19 (0.65)

−0.04 (0.60)

0.09 (0.59)

< 0.001

−0.22 (0.64)

0.04 (0.60)

< 0.001

  1. Hazard drinking = AUDIT score “5+”, Low Risk Drinking is AUDIT scores “1,2,3,4”; Non-drinkers is AUDIT score “0”
  2. *Significance of differences between group analyzed using univariate ordinal multinomial cumulative logit analysis using GEE methods to adjusted for clustering by school
  3. **Significance of differences between group analyzed using univariate binomial logit analysis using GEE methods to adjusted for clustering by school
  4. Risk Factor Measures: standardize scores where the mean = 0 and standard deviation =1, higher scores are worse. Protective Factor Measure: standardize scale where mean = 0, standard deviation = 1, higher scores are better