Research On Characteristics Of Adolescent Risk Behavior And Exploration On Protection/Risk Model

Objective: (1) To investigate the prevalence of adolescent risk behavior in Suzhou and analyze the distributional characteristic; (2) To catagorize different clusters of adolescents based on the co-occurrence of risk behaviors and study the characteristic of co-occurrence for every cluster; (3) To investigate protection factors and risk factors of adolescent risk behaviors and try to establish a protection/risk model exploring how these factors influence risk behaviors.Methods: (1) Self-edited general questionnaire, YRBSS, CES-D, MASC, CERQ, SES, ASLEC, FES-CV, SSSA were administered to a sample of 1420 adolescents from three junior and senior high schools of average teaching level in Suzhou. Statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS11.5 and AMOS7.0 softwares. Chi-square test, t test, one-way ANOVA, correlation analysis, regression analysis, cluster analysis and structural equation modeling were applied to evaluate the data.Results : (1) The detection rates of the nine risk behaviors were as follows (from high to low): unintentional injuries(72.1%), physical inactivity(68.5%), alcohol use(51.9%), unhealthy weight control (23.9%), suicide (13.7%), violence (10.2%), smoking (8.3%), drug abuse (3.3%), risk sexual behavior (3.0%), and physical inactivity, alcohol use, unintentional injuries were with high scores on severity. (2) The detection rates and severity of violence and suicide were significantly higher in junior high school students than in senior high school students(p< 0.01), while the detection rates and severity of unintentional injuries, smoking, alcohol use and physical inactivity of junior high school students were significantly lower than those of senior high school student(p< 0.01). Boys had higher detection rates and greater severity of violence, smoking, alcohol use and risk sexual behavior(p< 0.01), while girls had higher detection rates and greater severity of suicide, unhealthy weight control and physical inactivity (p<0.01). Background factors of family had different influence on these risk behaviors, however each factor only influenced certain kinds of risk behaviors. (3) Positive correlations among various risk behaviors with differed degrees were noticed in our study except a weak negative correlation between violence and physical inactivity. (4) Four distinct clusters (lowest risk, lower risk, moderate risk, high risk) were categorized based on the co-occurrence of risk behaviors in both males and females students, and the main difference between males and females was found in the high risk cluster; physical inactivity had no classificatory value in boys(p >0.05)while risky sexual behavior and physical inactivity had no classificatory value in girls(p >0.05). (5) Depression, anxiety, maladaptive cognitive emotional regulation strategies, life events, family conflicts were positively related to a variety of risk behaviors (p< 0.05)while adaptive cognitive emotional regulation strategies, self-esteem, family cohesion, social supports were negatively related to a variety of risk behaviors(p< 0.05); different factors had different effects of prediction. (6) Life events, family conflicts, maladaptive cognitive emotional regulation strategies, negative emotion (depression, anxiety) were risk factors, while family cohesion, social supports, self-esteem, adaptive cognitive emotional regulation strategies were protection factors; life events, family conflicts and negative emotion had direct effect on risk behaviors while the other factors only had indirect effect.Conclusions: (1) Risk behaviors are prevalent in adolescents with differences on grade, gender and various family factors and have special culture characteristic. (2) Based on the co-occurrence of risk behaviors, both males and females can be divided into four distinct clusters (lowest risk, lower risk, moderate risk, high risk) with different characteristic of co-occurrence. (3) Life events, family conflicts, maladaptive cognitive emotional regulation strategies, negative emotion were risk factors, while family cohesion, social supports, self-esteem, adaptive cognitive emotional regulation strategies were protection factors. (4) Life events, family conflicts and negative emotion had direct effect on risk behaviors while the other factors only had indirect effect.