Antisocial Romantic Partners Linked to Past-30 Day Opioid Misuse

Sashawn Lawrence

Authors:  Sashawn Lawrence, Micah E. Johnson P.h.D

Faculty Mentor: Micah E. Johnson P.h.D

College:  College of Public Health and Health Professions

Abstract

Drug overdose related deaths among adolescents have increased in recent years, and evidence suggests that justice-involved children (JIC) have higher risks. The current opioid epidemic has provoked interests in the predictors of opioid misuse (OM) initiation among JIC.  By the age of 16, many adolescents become involved in romantic relationships, which play a major role in identity formation. This study investigates whether having an antisocial or prosocial romantic partner increases risk of past-30 day (P30D) OM. Compared to those who were not involved in a romantic relationship, JIC who had antisocial romantic partners at first screen were 2.48 times as likely to meet criteria for P30D OM at final screen while adjusting for covariates. Surprisingly, JIC in prosocial relationships were 1.3 times as likely to meet criteria for P30D OM as those who were not involved in a romantic relationship. However, JIC with antisocial partners were twice as likely as those with prosocial partners to meet criteria for past-30 day OM. Antisocial romantic partners are an important risk factor for adolescent OM. Stakeholders should collaborate with youth to develop strategies to foster prosocial romantic relationships and social networks among high-risk youth.

Poster Pitch

Click the video below to view the student's poster pitch.

Poster

Click the image to enlarge.
0 0 vote
Presenter Rating
21 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Myiera Seymour
Myiera Seymour (@guest_2498)
1 year ago

Great Research!

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_6674)
Reply to  Myiera Seymour
1 year ago

Thank you!

Dr. C
Dr. C (@guest_2828)
1 year ago

Excellent work and presentation of the data!

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_6726)
Reply to  Dr. C
1 year ago

Thank you!

Erin Kirsche
Erin Kirsche (@guest_3484)
1 year ago

Your poster and presentation were awesome! I learned a lot from your presentation

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_6754)
Reply to  Erin Kirsche
1 year ago

Thank you, I am glad you found it informative!

Melanie Hechavarria
Melanie Hechavarria (@guest_3518)
1 year ago

Great job Sashawn! Found it interesting how you all chose to define prosocial and antisocial relationships. I agree with you on the consideration that the reason prosocial relationships gave you that result could be because of misclassification by participants. Overall really interesting topic!

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_4114)
Reply to  Melanie Hechavarria
1 year ago

Thank you Melanie! The decision to define antisocial and prosocial the way we did was due to my mentor’s sociology background. Therefore these definitions sociologically-based.

Melanie Hechavarria
Melanie Hechavarria (@guest_3700)
1 year ago

Great job Sashawn! I really enjoyed your presentation. I found it interesting how you all chose to define prosocial and antisocial relationships. I agree with your stance on what could’ve been the reason behind having for the rate that you all did for prosocial relationships. I think it’s definitely safe to say that it could’ve been the result of misclassification by the participants. Overall this was a really interesting topic!

Hannah Gracy
Hannah Gracy (@guest_4298)
1 year ago

Hi Sashawn! Thanks for telling us about your research, I found your project very interesting. I see in your poster that you collected some data on depression. Can you tell me a bit more about how that data was used in your study? Thanks!

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_5298)
Reply to  Hannah Gracy
1 year ago

Of course! So in the data, depression, and anxiety are combined. History of depression was measured by an ordinal variable reporting the youth’s history of depression and/or anxiety at intake. Response items were (0) no history of depression/anxiety, (1) occasional depression, (2) consistent depression/anxiety but no impairment, (3) impairment from consistent depression. Depression data was used as a control since it was a covariate.

Hannah Gracy
Hannah Gracy (@guest_7010)
Reply to  Sashawn Lawrence
1 year ago

Thank you!

Corinne Evans
Corinne Evans (@guest_4874)
1 year ago

I really enjoyed listening to your presentation and exploring your poster. I think your results are very interesting and impactful. Do you think this research should inform current interventions on OM in adolescents such that these interventions may target adolescents in romantic relationships?

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_5272)
Reply to  Corinne Evans
1 year ago

Yes Corrine, I absolutely believe it should be used to inform interventions for this population. While some may say that this evidence indicates that we should be discouraging romantic relationships among JIC or at-risk youth I think looking at it from this standpoint is detrimental. Instead, I believe stakeholders should promote drug education and awareness, particularly among adolescents who are romantically involved as well as create programs that teach them how to effectively avoid, detect and terminate unhealthy romantic relationships

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_4958)
1 year ago

Of course! So in the data, depression, and anxiety are combined. History of depression was measured by an ordinal variable reporting the youth’s history of depression and/or anxiety at intake. Response items were (0) no history of depression/anxiety, (1) occasional depression, (2) consistent depression/anxiety but no impairment, (3) impairment from consistent depression. Depression data was used as a control since it was a covariate.

Emily Case
Emily Case (@guest_4988)
1 year ago

This seems to be a pretty significant linkage. Does this research have any policy implications? You also mention that the data on relationships were self reported. Do you forsee a way to get more accurate data on this? Thanks! Wonderful job!

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_5956)
Reply to  Emily Case
1 year ago

While I do not think that this has any policy-related implications directly there is a possibility that it can indirectly. An example could be that if interventions were to come about due to these findings, it can possibly engage policy in order to successfully implement and support the intervention. As far as the data being self-report., after discussing with my mentor he has told me that the PACT assessment the JIC youths take involve questions about their relationships. Based on these answers, the relationship is then coded as either prosocial and antisocial. I am sorry for the confusion here, I need to change my verbiage to reflect this.

Amber Angell
Amber Angell (@guest_5544)
1 year ago

Important and interesting work, Sashawn! Do you know of any existing interventions or programs that have been shown to successfully promote prosocial romantic relationships in this population?

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_6578)
Reply to  Amber Angell
1 year ago

Hello Dr. Angell! I currently do not know any interventions specifically that seeks to promote the prosocial romantic relationship. However, there is a database on youth.gov (https://youth.gov/evidence-innovation/program-directory?keywords=&field_pd_factors_risks_tid=All&field_pd_factors_protective_tid=All) that has a list of programs across the country directed at preventing/ reducing delinquency. I believe that some of these programs could have aspects of their program targeted at promoting prosocial relationships.

Dr. Samesha Barnes Ivey
Dr. Samesha Barnes Ivey (@guest_6076)
1 year ago

Great job, Sashawn. I’m glad that you showcased the excellent work that you did with Dr. Johnson. I know his proud of you, as are we. #mcnairbeware

Sashawn Lawrence
Sashawn Lawrence (@guest_6820)
Reply to  Dr. Samesha Barnes Ivey
1 year ago

Thank you Dr. Barnes! #mcnairbeware