Examining the stability of transport behaviours for high-risk early adolescents

1. Examining the stability of transport behaviours for high-risk early adolescents • 20th International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference • Brisbane, August 27 2013 • Kelly Dingli • Lisa Buckley, Rebekah Chapman, Bianca Reveruzzi,Mary Sheehan

2. Presentation overview

3. Introduction to the research • Injury is a leading cause of death and disability for adolescents (CDC, 2010) • Transport related injuries are the leading cause of death and disability for persons aged 15-29 years worldwide (WHO, 2013) • Adolescents have increased risk of harm due to the co-existence of increasing alcohol use and engagement in risky transport behaviours

4. Transport related injuries in Australia • 35% of all deaths for persons aged 15-24 years in in 2007 (AIHW, 2011) • Leading cause of hospitalisation for persons aged 12-14 years in 2008/9 (AIHW, 2011) • 53% of adolescents (13-14 years) reported at least one transport related injury in six month period (Chapman & Sheehan, 2005)

5. The relationship between adolescent transport injuries and risky behaviour • There is an association between adolescent injury experiences and engagement in risk taking behaviour(Buckley et al., 2012) • Potential for harm increases as co-occurrence of other risky behaviours (e.g. alcohol use) appears to increase over time

6. Adolescent risk taking indicators • Risk taking indicators are positively related to engagement in risky behaviour (Jelalian et al., 1997) • Adolescents who report at least one transport related injury were more likely to report engagement in other risk taking behaviours (Chapman & Sheehan, 2005)

7. High-risk adolescents and transport related injuries • High-risk adolescents are at increased risk of harm than non high-risk adolescents due to greater engagement in risky transport behaviours • There is a need to understand more about the difference between high-risk and non high-risk adolescents to target school interventions

8. Defining high-risk adolescents • Participants were classified as high-risk during post-hoc analyses if they had reported seeking medical treatment for one or more injury during the preceding 6 month period (baseline)

9. Research aim • To examine change in alcohol use, anger management and transport risk taking behaviours for early high-risk adolescents and non high-risk adolescents over a six month period

10. Participants and Procedure • Year 9 students (N=1,005, 65% female), aged 13-14 years • 20 high schools (13 State; 5 Catholic; 2 Independent) • Paper based survey • Matched data (anonymous)

11. Measures • Demographic characteristics • Risk taking: Mak’s adolescent delinquency scale (1987), including five transport related items • Alcohol use: Self-reports of alcohol use for preceding 6 month period • Anger management: Temper subscale of the Measures of Self-Control (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursick & Arneklev, 1993)

12. Analyses • Analyses examined differences in high-risk adolescent (n=264; 28.82%) and non high-risk adolescent (n=652; 71.18%) populations: • Demographic characteristics (chi-square test) • Change in risk taking indicators and alcohol use over 6 month period (chi-square test) • Self management of anger over 6 month period (independent t-test)

13. Results • High-risk adolescents reported a greater increase of engagement in each risk category over time compared with non high-risk adolescents

14. Increase in engagement in each risk category over 6 months % Increase in engagement 4.7% 2.6% Risk category

15. Results continued • Engagement in risk taking behaviours increases at greater levels for high-risk compared with non high-risk adolescents over time • Differences were identified in the stability of a sample of risk taking indicators for high-risk adolescents and non high-risk adolescents

16. Results: Demographic characteristics and anger management • Demographics were not related to the stability of risk taking behaviours • No significant difference in self-management of anger for either group over the six month period

17. Conclusions • The dynamic change in risk taking behaviours by high-risk adolescents over time supports the positive relationship between aging and increased risk taking in adolescence (Pickett et al., 2002) • The findings suggest that there is a greater need to target change in risk taking behaviour of high-risk adolescents

18. Conclusions continued • High-risk adolescents have a different trajectory of engagement in risk taking • Any program evaluation measuring change should examine findings for high-risk adolescents separately • The findings contribute to bridging the gap in literature about the application of school based injury prevention interventions to high-risk adolescents (Dent et al., 2001)

19. Limitations and future directions • Self-reported data • Data matching problems • Future directions: Currently involved in outcome evaluation of injury prevention intervention comparing change in risk taking behaviour of high-risk and non high-risk adolescents

20. Questions? K2.dunstan@qut.edu.au

21. Increase in engagement in each risk category over 6 months

22. Change in engagement in each risk category over 6 months % Change in engagement Risk category

23. Change in engagement in each risk category over 6 months * Significant at < 0.05%