160 likes | 363 Views
Kaveh Aminzadeh School of Population Health University of Auckland. adolescent wellbeing & Neighbourhoods. Adolescent Wellbeing. Concerns Positive Youth Development “Problem-free is not fully prepared …” Pittman, 1991)
E N D
KavehAminzadeh School of Population Health University of Auckland adolescent wellbeing &Neighbourhoods
Adolescent Wellbeing • Concerns • Positive Youth Development • “Problem-free is not fully prepared …” Pittman, 1991) • Development takes place through the processes of reciprocal interactions between individual and environment (Bronfenbrennar, 1981)
Neighbourhoods • Importance for Adolescents • Neighbourhood & Wellbeing • Neighbourhood characteristics as Stressors/Resources influencing health directly/indirectly • Social Capital Theory (Putnam, 1995) • Limited Previous Studies • Adult-centred/inappropriate methods (Morgan 2009 & Borges 2010)
Why Multilevel Analysis? (Manski, 1995) Individual Characteristics Environment
Methodology • Youth 07 dataset • Nationally representative random sample • 9107 students (years 9-13), 96 schools [Response rate: 84% of schools & 74% of students] • Geo-coding procedure
Defining Neighbourhood • Census Area Unit 9107students ,1188 Neighbourhoods 5567 Students, 262 Neighbourhoods
Individual level measures • Demographic variables • Gender, Age, Ethnicity & Socioeconomic Status • Emotional Wellbeing (Diener 2009) • WHO-5 Wellbeing Index • Cheerful/Good spirits; Calm/Relaxed; Active/Vigorous; Fresh/Rested; Interested in life • General Mood • Life Satisfaction
Neighbourhood level measures • Social Cohesion (e.g. Do the people in your neighbourhood help each other? Are they friendly?) • Membership in Community Organisations (e.g. Do you belong to a volunteer group who help with disabilities?) • Residential Stability (In the past year how many times have you moved home?) • Neighbourhood Facilities(e.g. park, sports field) • Neighbourhood Physical Disorders(e.g. Graffiti, rubbish)
Analysis • Bivariate Analysis • Multilevel Analysis • Cross classified random intercept multilevel model • Examining cross-level Interaction between individual SES and the main effects
Results – Bivariate Association P = 0.0044 n = 262 P < 0.0001 Psychological Wellbeing
P = 0.06 Psychological Wellbeing High membership Medium membership Low membership Socio-economic Deprivation
Summary of Findings • Significant positive association between adolescent wellbeing and neighbourhood social cohesion & youth membership. • No association between adolescent wellbeing and neighbourhood facilities, neighbourhood physical disorders & residential stability. • Buffering effect of neighbourhood youth membership for students in high SED.
Discussion • Strengths • Nationally representative data; Multilevel analysis; Validated measures of positive outcome; • Limitations • Cross-sectional design; Only including adolescents at school; Limited in defining neighbourhood
Future Research • Including data from both adolescents and adults • How to increase social cohesion • How to increase youth participation in community affairs
Acknowledgment • Students, staff and schools participating with the Youth’07 survey • Youth’07 was funded by • Health Research Council, Department of Labour, Families Commission, ACC, SPARC, ALAC, and Ministries of Youth Development, Justice and Health