Substance use prevalence rates among migrant and native adolescents in Europe: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUES: Migrant adolescents show specific risk and protective factors associated with substance use, but the extent to which prevalence rates differ between migrant and native-born youth in Europe remains unclear. The present study aims to provide a comprehensive review of all available substance use prevalence studies on differences in substance use between migrant and native-born adolescents in Europe. APPROACH: In this systematic review, PubMed, Medline and Pre-Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for articles comparing substance use prevalence rates (tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs) between migrant and native-born adolescents or young adults aged 11 to 29 years in European countries. The Joanna Briggs Institute prevalence critical appraisal tool was used for quality assessment. KEY FINDINGS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings unanimously showed lower alcohol use in migrant compared to native-born adolescents, in particular among migrant adolescents from non-European countries and/or with a Muslim background. For tobacco and illicit drug use, findings were mixed. IMPLICATIONS: The results suggest a healthier behaviour profile among migrants than among native-born adolescents regarding alcohol use. Therefore, it would be beneficial to develop interventions to support migrant communities in maintaining their healthier alcohol use practices upon arrival in the host country. CONCLUSION: Compared to native-born adolescents, migrant adolescents are less likely to use alcohol. The findings on tobacco and illicit drug use were mixed. A European standard for surveys regarding substance use among adolescents is needed to investigate fluctuations, causes, and consequences of substance use differences between migrants and natives at the European level.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".