Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The Relationship Between Neighborhood Characteristics and Recruitment into Adolescent Family-Based Substance Use Prevention Programs

Abstract

Youth in disadvantaged neighborhoods are at risk for poor health outcomes. Characteristics of these neighborhoods may translate into intensified risk due to barriers utilizing preventive care such as substance use prevention programs. While family-level risks affect recruitment into prevention programs, few studies have addressed the influence of neighborhood risks. This study consists of 744 families with an 11- to 12-year-old child recruited for a family-based substance use prevention program. Using US Census data, logistic regressions showed neighborhoods were related to recruitment, beyond individual characteristics. Greater neighborhood unemployment was related to decreased agreement to participate in the study and lower rates of high school graduation were related to lower levels of actual enrolment. Conversely, higher rates of single-female-headed households were related to increased agreement. Recruitment procedures may need to recognize the variety of barriers and enabling forces within the neighborhood in developing different strategies for the recruitment of youth and their families.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Lambert SF, Brown TL, Phillips CM, et al. The relationship between perceptions of neighborhood characteristics and substance use among urban African American adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2004;34(3–4):205–218.

  2. 2.

    Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 2000;126(2):309–337.

  3. 3.

    Byrnes HF, Chen MJ, Miller BA, et al. The relative importance of mothers’ and youths’ neighborhood perceptions for youth alcohol use and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2007;36:649–659.

  4. 4.

    Frank R, Cerda M, Rendon M. Barrios and burbs: Residential context and health-risk behaviors among Angeleno adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 2007;48(3):283–300.

  5. 5.

    Shaw CR, McKay HD. Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1942.

  6. 6.

    McCulloch A. An examination of social capital and social disorganisation in neighbourhoods in the British household panel study. Social Science and Medicine, 2003;56(7):1425–1438.

  7. 7.

    Sampson RJ, Lauritsen JL. Violent victimization and offending: Individual-, situational-, and community-level risk factors. . In: Reiss AJ, Roth JA, eds. Understanding and preventing violence. Vol 3. Social influences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994:1–114.

  8. 8.

    Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Earls F. Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 1999;64(5):633–660.

  9. 9.

    Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 1997;277:918–924.

  10. 10.

    Elliott D, Wilson W, Huizinga D, et al. The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1996;33(4):389–426.

  11. 11.

    Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1995;36(1):1–10.

  12. 12.

    Ellen IG, Mijanovich T, Dillman KT. Neighborhood effects on health: Exploring the links and assessing the evidence. Journal of Urban Affairs, 2001;23(3–4):391–408.

  13. 13.

    Auchincloss AH, Van Nostrand JF, Ronsaville D. Access to health care for older persons in the United States: Personal, structural, and neighborhood characteristics. Journal of Aging and Health, 2001;13(3):329–354.

  14. 14.

    Andersen RM, Yu H, Wyn R, et al. Access to medical care for low-income persons: How do communities make a difference? Medical Care Research and Review, 2002;59(4):384–411.

  15. 15.

    Fossett JW, Perloff JD, Peterson JA, et al. Medicaid in the inner city: The case of maternity care in Chicago. Milbank Quarterly, 1990;68(1):111–141.

  16. 16.

    Perloff JD. Health care resources for children and pregnant women. Future of Children, 1992;2:78–94.

  17. 17.

    Pappas G, Hadden WC, Kozak LJ, et al. Potentially avoidable hospitalizations: inequalities in rates between US socioeconomic groups. American Journal of Public Health, 1997;87(5):811–816.

  18. 18.

    Bach PB, Pham HH, Schrag D, et al. Primary care physicians who treat blacks and whites. New England Journal of Medicine, 2004;351(6):575–584.

  19. 19.

    Fiscella K, Williams DR. Health disparities based on socioeconomic inequities: Implications for urban health care. Academic Medicine, 2004;79(12):1139–1147.

  20. 20.

    Freeman HP, Chu KC. Determinants of cancer disparities: Barriers to cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America, 2005;14:655–669.

  21. 21.

    Shah-Canning D, Alpert JJ, Bauchner H. Care-seeking patterns of inner-city families using an emergency room. A three-decade comparison. Medical Care, 1996;34(12):1171–1179.

  22. 22.

    Eslami MH, Zayaruzny M, Fitzgerald GA. The adverse effects of race, insurance status, and low income on the rate of amputation in patients presenting with lower extremity ischemia. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2007;45(1):55–59.

  23. 23.

    Niederhauser VP, Stark M. Narrowing the gap in childhood immunization disparities. Pediatric Nursing, 2005;31(5):380–386.

  24. 24.

    Salmond C, Crampton P, Sutton F. NZDep91: A New Zealand index of deprivation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 1998;22(7):835–837.

  25. 25.

    Perloff JD, Jaffee KD. Late entry into prenatal care: The neighborhood context. Social Work, 1999;44(2):116–128.

  26. 26.

    Wells BL, Horm JW. Targeting the underserved for breast and cervical cancer screening: The utility of ecological analysis using the National Health Interview Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 1998;88(10):1484–1489.

  27. 27.

    Gelberg L, Gallagher TC, Andersen RM, et al. Competing priorities as a barrier to medical care among homeless adults in Los Angeles. American Journal of Public Health, 1997;87(2):217–220.

  28. 28.

    Kumpfer KL, Alvarado R, Whiteside HO. Family-based interventions for substance use and misuse prevention. Substance Use and Misuse, 2003;38(11–13):1759–1787.

  29. 29.

    Kumpfer KL. Special populations: Etiology and prevention of vulnerability to chemical dependency in children of substance abusers. In: Brown BS, Mills Arnold R, eds. Youth at high risk for substance abuse. Rockville, MD: NIDA Monograph; 1987:1–71.

  30. 30.

    Tobler N, Kumpfer KL. Meta-analysis of effectiveness of family-focused substance abuse prevention programs. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention;2000.

  31. 31.

    Tobler NS, Stratton HH. Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention, 1997;18(1):71–128.

  32. 32.

    Heinrichs N, Bertram H, Kuschel A, et al. Parent recruitment and retention in a universal prevention program for child behavior and emotional problems: Barriers to research and program participation. Prevention Science, 2005;6(4):275–285.

  33. 33.

    Prinz RJ, Smith EP, Dumas JE, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in prevention trials involving family-based interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2001;20(1 Suppl):31–37.

  34. 34.

    Spoth R, Redmond C. Research on family engagement in preventive interventions: Toward improved use of scientific findings in primary prevention practice. Journal of Primary Prevention, 2000;21(2):267–284.

  35. 35.

    Ansari Z, Carson NJ, Ackland MJ, et al. A public health model of the social determinants of health. Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, 2003;48(4):242–251.

  36. 36.

    Cohen DA, Linton KL. Parent participation in an adolescent drug abuse prevention program. Journal of Drug Education, 1995;25(2):159–169.

  37. 37.

    Cohen DA, Rice JC. A parent-targeted intervention for adolescent substance use prevention: Lessons learned. Evaluation Review, 1995;19(2):159–180.

  38. 38.

    Toomey TL, Williams, C. L., Perry, C. L., Murray, D. M., Dudoritz, B., & Veblen-Mortenson, S. An alcohol primary prevention program for parents of 7th graders: The amazing alternatives! home program. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 1996;5:35–53.

  39. 39.

    Williams CL, Perry CL, Dudovitz B, et al. A home-based prevention program for sixth-grade alcohol use: Results from Project Northland. Journal of Primary Prevention, 1995;16(2):125–147.

  40. 40.

    Spoth RL, Redmond C, Kahn JH, et al. A prospective validation study of inclination, belief, and context predictors of family-focused prevention involvement. Family Process, 1997;36(4):403–429.

  41. 41.

    Wilson WJ. The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1987.

  42. 42.

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings, Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-36, HHS Publication No. SMA 09–4434, Rockville, MD 2009.

  43. 43.

    Spoth R, Redmond C, Lepper H. Alcohol initiation outcomes of universal family-focused preventive interventions: one- and two-year follow-ups of a controlled study. J Stud Alcohol Suppl, 1999;13:103–111.

  44. 44.

    Bauman KE, Foshee VA, Ennett ST, et al. Family Matters: A family-directed program designed to prevent adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Health Promotion Practice, 2001;2(1):81–96.

  45. 45.

    Spoth R, Redmond C, Shin C. Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2001;69(4):627–642.

  46. 46.

    Spoth R, Reyes ML, Redmond C, et al. Assessing a public health approach to delay onset and progression of adolescent substance use: Latent transition and log-linear analyses of longitudinal family preventive intervention outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1999;67(5):619–630.

  47. 47.

    Bauman KE, Ennett ST, Foshee VA, et al. Influence of a family program on adolescent smoking and drinking prevalence. Prevention Science, 2002;3(1):35–42.

  48. 48.

    Bauman KE, Foshee VA, Ennett ST, et al. The influence of a family program on adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. American Journal of Public Health, 2001;91(4):604–610.

  49. 49.

    DeMarsh J, Kumpfer KL. Family-Oriented Interventions for the Prevention of Chemical Dependency in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 1986;17:117–151.

  50. 50.

    Kumpfer KL, Molgaard V, Spoth R. The Strengthening Families Program for the prevention of delinquency and drug use. Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1996:241–267.

  51. 51.

    Molgaard V, Kumpfer KL, Fleming CB. The Strengthening families program: for parents and youth 10–14. Ames, Iowa: University Extension;1997.

  52. 52.

    Spoth RL, Redmond C. Project family prevention trials based in community–university partnerships: Toward scaled-up preventive interventions. Prevention Science, 2002;3(3):203–221.

  53. 53.

    Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK. The scope of health promotion and health education. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, eds. Health behavior and health education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997:3–18.

  54. 54.

    Medicine Io. The future of public health. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences;1989.

  55. 55.

    Kish L. Survey sampling. New York: Wiley; 1965.

  56. 56.

    Crichton N. Information point: Odds ratio. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2001;10(2):268–269.

  57. 57.

    Beyers JM, Bates JE, Pettit GS, et al. Neighborhood structure, parenting processes, and the development of youths’ externalizing behaviors: a multilevel analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2003;31(1–2):35–53.

  58. 58.

    Rosenfeld E. Social support and health status: A literature review. Adelaide: South Australian Community Health Research Institute; 1997.

  59. 59.

    Harachi TW, Catalano RF, Hawkins JD. Effective recrutiment for parenting programs within ethnic minority communities. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 1997;14(1):23–39.

  60. 60.

    Yancey AK, Ortega AN, Kumanyika SK. Effective recruitment and retention of minority research participants. Annual Review of Public Health, 2006;27:1–28.

  61. 61.

    Duncan SC, Strycker LA, Duncan TE, et al. Telephone recruitment of a random stratified youth sample for a physical activity study. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2002;24:347–358.

  62. 62.

    Verboncoeur CJ, Stewart AL, King AC, et al. The use of refusal postcards in recruiting older adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2000;22(4):330–333.

  63. 63.

    Aquilino WS. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing for household drug use surveys. International Journal of the Addictions, 1992;27(1):71–91.

  64. 64.

    Burton LM, Price-Spratlen T. Through the eyes of children: An ethnographic perspective on neighborhoods and child development. In: Masten AS, ed. Cultural processes in child development. The Minnesota symposia on child psychology. Vol 29. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999:77–96.

  65. 65.

    Duncan SC, Duncan TE, Strycker LA. A multilevel analysis of neighborhood context and youth alcohol and drug problems. Prevention Science, 2002;3(2):125–133.

  66. 66.

    Bronstein P, Duncan P, Clauson J, et al. Preventing middle school adjustment problems for children from lower income families: A program for aware parenting. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1998;19:129–152.

  67. 67.

    Hahn EJ, Simpson MR, Kidd P. Cues to parent involvement in drug prevention and school activities. Journal of School Health, 1996;66(5):165–170.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks are extended to Michael Todd and Joel Grube for their statistical guidance. Research for and preparation of this manuscript were supported by NIAAA “Adolescent Family-Based Alcohol Prevention” R01-AA015323-01, 2005–2010, Brenda A. Miller, P.I., and NIAAA “Prevention Science Research Training Program Grant” T32 AA014125, 2004–2009, Genevieve Ames, P.I. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism or the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of Interest

None

Author information

Correspondence to Hilary F. Byrnes PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Byrnes, H.F., Miller, B.A., Aalborg, A.E. et al. The Relationship Between Neighborhood Characteristics and Recruitment into Adolescent Family-Based Substance Use Prevention Programs. J Behav Health Serv Res 39, 174–189 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-011-9260-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Block Group
  • Neighborhood Characteristic
  • Child Gender
  • Adolescent Substance
  • Percentage Point Increase