MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386421069 · doi:10.1080/14659891.2023.2250859

Prevalence and correlates of addictive behaviours among adolescents in Chandigarh, North India

2023· article· en· W4386421069 on OpenAlexaff
Shivani Aloona, Meenakshi Bhardwaj

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Substance Use · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersIndian Council of Medical Research
KeywordsAddictionPsychologyPsychiatryDemographyClinical psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The objective of the present study was to determine the prevalence of addictive behaviors among in-school and out-of-school adolescents of age 13–19 years in Chandigarh, India.Methods Problem Behavior Theory (PBT) was used to identify the risk and protective factors for addictive problem behaviors among adolescents.Results A total of 1634 adolescents were included from in-school (n = 1134) and out-of-school (n = 500) categories. The prevalence of addictive behaviors was 19.1% (current smoking 6%, alcohol drinking 6.1%, and drug use 7%) among adolescents aged 13 to 19. Significant predictors of smoking were being male (aOR = 4.43; 95%CI: 1.92,10.20; p < .001) and having a working father (aOR = 3.19; 95%CI: 1.10, 9.20; p < .05). Total protective score [smoking: aOR = 0.99; 95% CI:0.97, 0.99: p < .05; alcohol use: aOR:0.98;95% CI:0.97,0.99; p < .01; drug use: OR:0.99, 95%CI: 0.98,0.99; p < .05] and total risk score [smoking: aOR = 1.14; 95%CI:1.11, 1.17: p < .001; alcohol use: aOR:1.10;95% CI:1.07,1.12; p < .001; drug use: aOR:1.05, 95%CI: 1.04,1.06 p < .001] were significantly associated with all three addictive behaviors.Conclusions The current study’s findings can inform the development of intervention programs focusing on both adolescents and communities (social environment surrounding adolescents) to enhance the protection of adolescents at risk for addictive behaviors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Substance UseSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207