Annals of epidemiology · 2020
Do peer social relationships mediate the harmful effects of a housing mobility experiment on boys' risky behaviors?
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schmidt Nicole M, Thyden Naomi Harada, Kim Huiyun, Osypuk Theresa L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand why a housing mobility experiment caused harmful effects on adolescent boys' risky behaviors.
METHODS: Moving to Opportunity (MTO) (1994-2010) randomly assigned volunteer families to a treatment group receiving a Section 8 rental voucher or a public housing control group. Our outcome was a global risky behavior index (RBI; measured in 2002, n = 750 boys) measuring the fraction of 10 items the youth engaged in, 6 measuring past 30-day substance use and 4 measuring recent risky sexual behavior. Potential mediators (measured in 2002) included peer social relationships (e.g., peer drug use, peer gang membership).
RESULTS: The voucher treatment main effect on boys' RBI was harmful (B (SE) = 0.05 (0.02), 95% CI 0.01, 0.08), and treatment marginally increased having friends who used drugs compared to controls (B (SE) = 0.67 (0.23), 95% CI 0.22, 1.12). Having friends who used drugs marginally mediated the MTO treatment effect on RBI (indirect effect: B (SE) = 0.02(.01), 95% CI -0.002, 0.04), reducing the total treatment effect by 39%.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating additional supports into housing voucher programs may help support teenage boys who experience disruptions to their social networks, to buffer potential adverse consequences of residential mobility.
METHODS: Moving to Opportunity (MTO) (1994-2010) randomly assigned volunteer families to a treatment group receiving a Section 8 rental voucher or a public housing control group. Our outcome was a global risky behavior index (RBI; measured in 2002, n = 750 boys) measuring the fraction of 10 items the youth engaged in, 6 measuring past 30-day substance use and 4 measuring recent risky sexual behavior. Potential mediators (measured in 2002) included peer social relationships (e.g., peer drug use, peer gang membership).
RESULTS: The voucher treatment main effect on boys' RBI was harmful (B (SE) = 0.05 (0.02), 95% CI 0.01, 0.08), and treatment marginally increased having friends who used drugs compared to controls (B (SE) = 0.67 (0.23), 95% CI 0.22, 1.12). Having friends who used drugs marginally mediated the MTO treatment effect on RBI (indirect effect: B (SE) = 0.02(.01), 95% CI -0.002, 0.04), reducing the total treatment effect by 39%.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating additional supports into housing voucher programs may help support teenage boys who experience disruptions to their social networks, to buffer potential adverse consequences of residential mobility.