Work stress and alcohol consumption among adolescents: moderation by family and peer influences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Excessive alcohol use in adolescence can be detrimental to health and academic performance. Few studies consider the moderating effects of parental and peer influence within the context of adolescent work outside of the school environment. This study aims to examine work stress among adolescents and the association with alcohol use and drunkenness, in the context of parental and peer influences. METHODS: Grade 12 students who participated in Monitoring the Future surveys between 2005 and 2009 (n = 12,341) were included in this study. Independent variables included work stress (job satisfaction, perceived safety, and perceived safety of possessions), self-reported perceptions towards academics and influence from parents and peers. Frequency of alcohol use and drunkenness were measured for lifetime, last 30 days and 12 months. The moderating effects of academic aspiration, parental, and peer influence were assessed on the relationship between work stress and alcohol use. RESULTS: Any work stress was positively associated with alcohol use over the past 12 months (odds ratio = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.23). Stratified analysis found that peer influence significantly moderated the relationship between work stress and alcohol use over the lifetime and past 12 months. Among adolescents with work stress, odds ratios of alcohol use over the lifetime was 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.97) for those with low negative peer influence and 1.09 (95% CI 0.97-1.22) for those with high negative peer influence. CONCLUSIONS: Problematic drinking patterns were more apparent among high school students who experienced stress at work. Positive peer influence, however, may buffer the adverse effect of work stress on alcohol use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".