Skip to main content
PMC home page
Global Journal of Health Science logoLink to Global Journal of Health Science
. 2014 Apr 1;6(4):22–35. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v6n4p22

Psychosocial Determinants of Mental Health and Risk Behaviours in Adolescents

M Carvalho 1,2,3,✉, M G Matos 3,4; Social Adventure Project Team3,4
PMCID: PMC4825241  PMID: 25001551

Abstract

This study aimed at identifying the prevalence of emotional problems among children and adolescents in Portugal. Gender, developmental aspects, their psychosocial determinants, and the time trends over 8 years were also explored.

The three waves of a cross-sectional survey obtained from the HBSC nationally representative samples of 10-17 year old children and adolescents in 1998, 2002, and 2006, were used. Specific composite indexes included emotional and somatic symptoms, substances’ use, demographic and psychosocial factors.

Girls reported more emotional symptoms, and boys reported more substances’ use. Emotional symptoms and substances’ use increased with age, in contrast school commitment and perception of safe neighbourhood decreased with age. With age, the communication with the family tends to become more difficult, while communication with the friends tends to become easier. Along the three waves, substances’ use and emotional symptoms have shown a general pattern of decrease.

Results were discussed according to literature and their consequences for the understanding of emotional problems and substance use in childhood and adolescence.

Mental health promotion includes both the prevention of emotional problems and risk behaviours; determinants include individual factors and a range of psychosocial factors. Mental health problems have a huge impact on adolescents’ well-being; however it is often a poorer area of intervention in school based interventions. Gender differences are highlighted.

Keywords: emotional problems, trends, psychosocial determinants, adolescents, gender differences

1. Introduction

Internalizing and externalizing problems in childhood and adolescence are very common and particularly relevant, due to their impact on psychosocial development. Among emotional and behavioural problems in childhood and adolescence, anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders are referred in literature as the most common (Matos et al., 2012; Ottova et al., 2012; Merikangas et al., 2010; Merikangas, Nakamura, & Kessler, 2009; Kuntsche et al., 2009). Lifetime prevalence rates for depression range from 15 to 20% in clinical samples (Birmaher et al. 1996; Kessler & Walters, 1998; Lewinsohn, Rhode, & Seeley, 1998) and from 22 to 60% in community samples (Roberts et al., 1990; Kubik et al., 2003), whereas lifetime prevalence rates for anxiety range from 11 to 17% in community samples, and from 27 to 45% in clinical samples (Essau, Conradt, & Peterman, 2000; Weiss & Last, 2001). Amongst behavioural problems, substances’ use, which is most reported in adolescence, may be a consequence of the maintenance of emotional and behavioural problems (Buckner & Schmidt, 2009; Costello et al., 2003; Kessler et al., 2007; King & Chassin, 2008; Marmorstein, White, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2010; Matos et al., 2010).

Gender and developmental differences in emotional and behavioural problems are also well documented: girls report greater emotional difficulties and boys report more behavioural problems (Crick & Zahn–Waxler, 2003; Schulte, Ramo, & Brown, 2009; Matos et al., 2013; Matos et al., 2012; Cruz et al., 2013); behavioural problems decrease with age and emotional problems increase with age (Bennett, Vora, & Rheingold, 2004; Canino et al., 2004; Costello et al., 2003; Gilliom & Shaw, 2004; Vitaro, Brendgen, & Barker, 2006; Patterson, Degarmo, & Knutson, 2000; Tremblay, 2000; Willoughby, Chalmers, & Busseri, 2004; Matos et al., 2012; Gaspar et al., 2012). Preschool behavioural problems predict later emotional problems (Mesman, Bongers, & Koot, 2001). With age, communication with the family tends to decrease both in quantity and quality, while communication with the friends tends to increase both in quality and quantity (Tomé et al., 2011, 2012).

According to the main theoretical models on emotional and behavioural disorders in childhood and adolescence, different factors are involved on their onset, maintenance, and modification. Several studies carried out in order to identify these factors, have shown that (a) genetic (Sprangers et al., 2010), (b) individual – attachment, temperament, emotional dysregulation, and information processing – (Cisler, Olatunji, Feldner, & Forsyth, 2010; Feng, Shaw, & Silk, 2008; Jansen, Veenstra, Ormel, Verhulst, & Reijneveld, 2011; Mazza, Fleming, Abbott, & Catalano, 2010; Neumann, van Lier, Frijns, Meeus, & Koot, 2011; Tobias, Guiney, Fonagy, Mayes, & Luyten, 2011; van der Zwaluw et al., 2008; Wetter & Hankin, 2009; Matos et al., 2013), (c) family - parental psychopathology and communication – (Copeland, Shanahan, Costello, & Angold, 2009; Cortes, Fleming, Mason, & Catalano, 2009; Feng, et al., 2008; Jaser, et al., 2008; Knappe, Beesdo, Fehm, Lieb, & Wittchen, 2009; Piche, Bergeron, Cyr, & Berthiaume, 2011; van Oort, Verhulst, Ormel, & Huizink, 2010; Warner, Wickramaratne, & Weissman, 2008; Tomé et al., 2011; 2012), and (d) social/contextual variables - peers pressure, school, neighbourhood, and life events- (Carter et al., 2010; Hankin, 2008; McLaughlin & Hatzenbuehler, 2009a; McLaughlin & Hatzenbuehler, 2009b; McLaughlin et al., 2010; Matos et al., 2010; Matos et al., 2012), are related to emotional and behavioral problems. However, only a small number of studies specifically considers family, social and contextual factors and, even scarcer, only a few analyse their developmental aspects.

The goals of the present study were threefold: a) to analyse gender and grade differences for individual, family and school variables in the three waves of the nationally representative sample of the HBSC between 1998 and 2006, b) to analyse the time trends of emotional problems, substance use and related family and school factors, and c) to understand the individual, familial, and school predictors of emotional problems and substance use.

2. Method

2.1 Participants

The three waves of the Portuguese sample of the HBSC include 17911 adolescents, 47% male and 53% female, aged between 10 and 17 years old (mean age of 14 years old), in the 6th (35.3%), 8th (36.3%), and in the 10th school year (28.3%), randomly assigned from national schools and stratified, representing all the country.

In 1998, the first Portuguese sample was composed of 6903 children and adolescents, 53% females and 47% males, with a mean age of 14 years old (Matos & Social Adventure Team, 2000). In 2002, the second sample was composed of 6131 children and adolescents, 49% males and 51% females, also with a mean age of 14 years old (Matos, & Social Adventure Team, 2003). Finally, in 2006, 4877 children and adolescents composed the third sample, 50.4% females and 49.6% males (Matos et al., 2006). Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the three samples, according to the database year. Details on the other demographic characteristics of the three samples can be found in Matos and Social Adventure Team (2000, 2003), and in Matos and colleagues (2006).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the sample according to the database year

1998 2002 2006
N % N % N %
Gender
 Male 3241 47 2417 49.6 3006 49
 Female 3662 53 2460 50.5 3125 50
School Grade
 6th grade 2409 31.7 1546 31.7 2369 38.6
 8th grade 2589 37.5 1740 35.7 2181 35.6
 10th grade 1905 27.6 1591 32.6 1581 25.8
Age 14.12 1,71 14 1.85 14.05 1.89
Open in a new tab

2.2 Measures

The questionnaire relied upon (Currie et al., 2004) composed of two parts. The main part includes a demographic data section and the assessment of school environment, alcohol and tobacco consumption, violence, physical activity and hobbies, nutrition, security, psychosocial health, general symptoms, social relationships and social support. In the second part, questions about drugs consumption and HIV information, attitudes and behaviours were included. Each questionnaire requires about 55 minutes to be administered. In the present study, several composite indexes were computed, in order to assess the main individual (emotional problems and substances’ use), family, peer (communication), and contextual factors (commitment to school and safe neighbourhood): school commitment was assessed by the sum of the five items related to school factors; emotional problems were assessed by the sum of the participants’ responses to the 10 items assessing somatic symptoms and nervousness and sadness; substances’ use was computed from the sum of the four items assessing smoking, alcohol and drugs consumption; communication with significant others, family and friends, was assessed by the sum of the responses to the 11 relevant items, and, finally, safe neighbourhood was computed from the nine items relevant to assess the perception of a safe neighbourhood (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Items used and range

Items Range
School commitment
 School performance 1 – 4 (very good/below average)*
 Liking school 1 -4 (a lot/not at all)*
 School mates like being together 1 – 5 (always true/always false)*
 School mates acceptance 1 – 5 (always true/always false)*
 Homework pressure 1 – 4 (none/a lot)*
Somatic symptoms
 Headaches 1 -5 (almost every day/almost never or never)*
 Stomac aches 1 -5 (almost every day/almost never or never)*
Nervousness and sadness
 Sad/depressed 1 -5 (almost every day/almost never or never)*
 Angry/bad mood 1 -5 (almost every day/almost never or never)*
 Nervous 1 -5 (almost every day/almost never or never)*
Substances’ use
 Smoking 1 – 4 (every day/don’t smoke)*
 Drinking 1 – 5 (every day/never)*
 Intoxicated 1 – 5 (never/more than 10 times)
 Drugs 1 – 4 (none/regularly)
Communication with family
 At ease speaking with father 1 – 4 (very easy/very difficult)*
 At ease speaking with mother 1 – 4 (very easy/very difficult)*
 At ease speaking with older brother 1 – 4 (very easy/very difficult)*
 At ease speaking with older sister 1 – 4 (very easy/very difficult)*
Communication with friends
 At ease speaking with best friend 1 – 4 (very easy/very difficult)*
 At ease speaking with same sex friend 1 – 4 (very easy/very difficult)*
 At ease speaking with other sex friend 1 – 4 (very easy/very difficult)*
Safe neighbourhood
 Get along weel 0 – 1 (no/yes)
 Safe place 0 – 1 (no/yes)
 Trust persons 0 – 1 (no/yes)
 Hobbies 0 – 1 (no/yes)
 Night fun 0 – 1 (no/yes)*
 Violence/robery 0 – 1 (no/yes)*
 Nice 0 – 1 (no/yes)
 Too withdrawn 0 – 1 (no/yes)*
 Good public services 0 – 1 (no/yes)
Open in a new tab
*

reverted items.

2.3 Procedure

The schools that took part on the sampling process were randomly selected from the national schools list, and stratified by educational regions. In each school, a random selection of classes was carried out and the questionnaire was administered by the teachers in the classroom, in group, after the students’ informed consent to their volunteer and anonymous participation in the study. Details on the procedures for data collection in the HBSC Study can be consulted in Matos and Social Adventure Team (2000, 2003), and in Matos and colleagues (2006).

2.4 Statistical Analysis

SPSS 18.0 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago IL, USA) was used in order to carry out Qui-square, t-Student and One-way ANOVAs tests to compare groups. Multiple linear regressions were carried out to study the associations between the variables.

3. Results

3.1 Descriptive Data for Individual, Family, and School Composite Indexes

Table 3 shows the descriptive data obtained for all the indexes composed to assess emotional problems, substances’ use, communication, and safe neighbourhood. Except for somatic symptoms and substances’ use, all skewness values were similar to the normal curve; kurtosis values on those variables, as for communication with significant others, also did not assume normality. However, due to the sample size, parametric statistics were used in further analyses.

Table 3.

Descriptive data for individual, family, and school composite indexes

Number of items M SD Range Skewness Kurtosis
School commitment 5 16.72 2.35 5-22 -.51 .62
Emotional Symptoms 5 9.34 .408 5-25 1.05 .60
 Somatic symptoms 2 3.24 1.74 2-10 1.51 1.82
 Nervousness and sadness 3 6.11 3.05 3-15 .96 .11
Substances’ use 4 5.44 2.31 4-18 2.32 5.83
Communication with significant others 7 24.06 3.91 7-35 -.66 1.21
 Family 4 14.33 2.82 4-20 -.93 1.07
 Friends 3 9.69 2.08 3-15 -.56 .69
Safe neighbourhood 9 12.21 1.87 7-18 -.33 1.03
Open in a new tab

3.2 Time Trends of Substances’ Use

The evolution of substances’ use was analysed along the three waves (see Table 4). Significant associations between the database year and smoking consumption, χ2 (6) = 127.36, p = .0001, alcohol consumption, χ2 (8) = 971.97, p = .0001, drunkenness, χ2 (8) = 44.69, p = .0001, and drugs consumption, χ2 (6) = 158.17, p = .0001, were found. Although most of the participants did not report consumptions, an increase of smoking consumption, regular drinking and drugs consumption was found in 2002. The increase in regular drugs consumption was maintained in 2006. A different pattern was identified for the number of intoxication episodes: although, again, most of the participants reported not having intoxication episodes, the adolescents tend to report a greater amount of intoxication episodes over time, from 1998 to 2006.

Table 4.

Substances’ use according to the database year

1998 (N = 6561) 2002 (N = 5921) 2006 (N = 4713) χ2
N % N % N %
Smoking consumption 127,36***
 I don’t smoke 5915 86.9 4943 81.4 4212 87.8
 Less than once a week 339 5 340 5.6 211 4.4
 At least once a week 185 2.7 274 4.5 132 2.8
 Everyday 368 5.4 513 8.5 240 5
Alcohol consumption 971,97***
 Never 2788 42.6 3829 63.7 2999 62.6
 Rarely 3109 47.5 1447 24.1 1257 26.2
 Every month 433 6.6 394 6.6 323 6.7
 Every week 195 3 283 4.7 179 3.7
 Everyday 26 .4 60 1 33 .7
Intoxicated 44.69***
 Never 5356 77.9 4562 75.5 3552 73.7
 Once 763 11.1 715 11.8 553 11.5
 Two or three times 471 6.8 445 7.4 425 8.8
 Four to ten times 140 2 173 2.9 155 3.2
 More than ten times 148 2.2 150 2.5 134 2,8
Drugs consumption (one month) 158.17***
 Never 6155 97.5 5227 93.4 4237 95.5
 Once 66 1 132 2.4 86 1.9
 More than once 90 1 152 2.7 66 1,5
 Regularly 0 0 86 1.5 48 1.1
Open in a new tab

Note:

***

p < .001. Adjusted residuals superior to 1.9 are shown in bold.

3.3 Gender comparisons for individual, family, peers and contextual factors

Gender comparisons have shown significant differences for the total score of emotional symptoms, t (17103) = -28.95, p = .0001, somatic symptoms, t (17448) = -30.26, p = .0001, nervousness and sadness, t (17203) = -21.54, p = .0001, and substances’ use, t (15686) = 12.25, p = .0001; girls reported more emotional symptoms and boys reported more substances’ use. Significant gender differences were also found for the total score of communication with significant others, t (7357) = 6.03, p = .0001, and specifically for communication with family, t (13095) = 7.90, p = .0001, and friends, t (9773) = 2.98, p = .003, with boys reporting being more at ease when communication with significant others. Finally, a gender difference was also found for safe neighbourhood, t (4354) = -9.02, p = .0001, with girls reporting perceptions of a more safe neighbourhood than boys. No gender differences were found for school commitment, p > .05 (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Gender comparisons for individual, family, peers and contextual factors

Males (N = 8265) Females (N = 8930) t η2
M SD M SD
Emotional symptoms 8,42 3,61 10,18 4,30 -28,95*** .082
 Somatic symptoms 2,84 1,47 3,61 1,88 -30,26*** .083
 Nervousness and sadness 5,59 2,81 6,58 3,19 -21,54*** .069
Substances’ use 5.68 2.55 5.22 2.05 12.25*** .055
Communication
 Significant others 24,36 4,14 23,81 3,68 6,03*** .057
 Family 14,54 2,83 14,15 2,80 7,90*** .049
 Friends 9,76 2,22 9,63 1,95 2,98** .034
School commitment 16,74 2,33 16,69 2,37 1.50 .018
Safe neighbourhood 11,95 1,96 12,46 1,75 -9,02*** .209
Open in a new tab

Note:

**

p ≤ .01;

***

p ≤ .001.

3.4 Grade Comparisons for Individual, Family, Peers and Contextual Factors

Developmental comparisons, based on school grade, have shown significant differences in emotional symptoms, F (2; 17102) = 176.33, p = .0001, and specifically in somatic symptoms, F (2; 17447) = 70.48, p = .0001, nervousness and sadness, F (2; 17202) = 168.11, p = .0001, and, also, in substances’ use, F (2; 15685) = 999.75, p = .0001. Participants in the 6th grade reported less emotional and behavioural symptoms compared to participants in the 8th grade, which also reported fewer symptoms than participants in the 10th grade. Grade differences were also found for communication with significant others, F (2; 7356) = 9.23, p = .0001, and specifically with family, F (2; 13094) = 40.38, p = .0001, and friends, F (2; 9772) = 34.23, p = .0001, with 8th graders reporting being more at ease communicating with significant others. However, when specifically considered, 6th graders reported being more at ease communicating with their families, compared to 8th and 10th graders, and less at ease communicating with friends compared to participants in the 8th grade, which also reported being less at ease than 10th graders when communicating with friends. School commitment and safe neighbourhood were also significantly different according to school grade, F (2; 17192) = 361.44, p = .0001, and F (2; 4353) = 32.32, p = .0001, respectively: 6th graders reported less school commitment than 8th graders, which reported less school commitment than 10th graders; 6th graders reported a perception of a less safe neighbourhood compared to 8th and 10th graders (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Grade comparisons for individual, family, peers and contextual factors

6th Grade (a) (N = 6324) 8th Grade (b) (N=6510) 10th Grade (c) (N=5077) F
M SD M SD M SD
Emotional symptoms 8.63 3.84 9.4 4.0 10.09 4.22 176.33*** a<b<c
 Somatic symptoms 3.08 1.69 3.22 1.71 3.47 1.79 70.48*** a<b<c
 Nervousness/sadness 5.57 2.90 6.22 3.09 6.62 3.09 168.11*** a<b<c
Substances’ use 4.56 1.32 5.42 2.22 6.51 2.83 999.75*** a<b<c
Communication
 Significant others 24.22 4.15 23.08 4.01 24.19 3.48 9.23*** a>b, c
 Family 14.64 2.86 14.13 2.90 14.23 2.65 40.38*** a>b, c
 Friends 9.50 2.30 9.67 2.07 9.93 1.82 34.23*** a<b<c
School commitment 17.3 2.39 16.64 2.3 16.11 2.2 361.44*** a>b>c
Safe neighbourhood 11.88 1.94 12.28 1.88 12.43 1.76 32.32*** a<b, c
Open in a new tab

Note:

***

p ≤ .001.

3.5 Time Trends in Individual, Family, Peers and Contextual Factors

Individual, family, peer and contextual factors evolution was studied according to gender (except for school commitment which showed no gender differences). Univariate ANOVA performed for school commitment showed a significant difference, F (2; 17192) = 276.01, p = .000, with 6th graders reporting less school commitment than 8th graders, which reported less school commitment than 10th graders (see Table 7).

Table 7.

Database year comparisons for school factors

1998 (a) (N = 6561) 2002 (b) (N = 5921) 2006 (c) (N = 4713) F
M SD M SD M SD
School commitment 17,24 2,21 16,47 2,42 16,29 2,34 276,01*** a>b>c
Open in a new tab

Note:

***

p ≤ .001.

Univariate ANOVAS 3*2 (database * gender) were performed for all the other variables. When main effects were significant, Post-hoc Scheffé tests, based on inspection of the sub-class means presented in Table 8, were undertaken to understand the nature of the interaction.

Table 8.

Database, year and gender comparisons for individual, family, peers and contextual factors

1998 2002 2006 F y F y*g F g
M F M F M F
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Emotional symptoms 8,6 3,6 10,2 4,3 8,6 3,6 10,5 4,3 7,8 3,4 9,6 4,2 67,30*** 3,59* 821,35***
 Somatic symptoms 3,0 1,5 3,7 1,9 2,7 1,4 3,5 1,8 2,7 1,3 3,4 1,8 62,48*** 1,34 879,49***
 Nervousness and sadness 5.6 2.7 6.4 3.1 5.9 2.9 7 3.2 5.1 2.6 6.2 3.1 89,28** 3,85*** 462,54*
Substances’ use 5.6 2.3 5.2 1.7 5.7 2.8 5.2 2.2 5.5 2.4 5.1 2.1 120.27*** 61.78*** 6.77***
Communication
Significant others - - - - 8,6 3,6 10,5 4,3 8.6 3.6 10.2 4.3 30.1** 1.3 36.2**
 Family 14.3 2.8 14 2.8 14.7 2.7 14.3 2.7 14.5 2.9 14 2.8 14.7** 1.2 65.2**
 Friends - - - - 9.9 2.1 9.6 1.9 9.5 2.3 9.5 1.9 27.3** 7.5*** 7.3***
Open in a new tab

Note: M = Male; F = Female; y = year; g = gender.

*

p ≤ .05;

**

p ≤ .01;

***

p ≤ .001.

A significant main effect of database year, F (2) = 67.30, p = .0001, η2 = .008, and gender, F (1) = 831.35, p = .0001, η2 = .046, qualified by a significant Database × Gender interaction, F (2) = 3.59, p = .027, η2 = .000, was found for emotional symptoms. Post-hoc tests to follow up the main effect of database, revealed that in 2006, less emotional symptoms were reported, compared to 2002 and 1998, and that girls reported more emotional symptoms than boys. For somatic symptoms, a significant main effect of database year, F (2) = 62.48, p = .0001, η2 = .007, and gender, F (1) = 879.49, p = .0001, η2 = .048, were also found. The Database × Gender interaction effect was not significant, p > .05. Post-hoc tests to follow up the main effect of database, revealed that in 1998, more somatic symptoms were reported, compared to 2002 and 2006, and that girls reported more somatic symptoms than boys. Finally, for nervousness and sadness, a significant main effect of database year, F (2) = 89.28, p = .0001, η2 = .010, and gender, F (1) = 362.54, p = .0001, η2 = .026, qualified by a significant Database × Gender interaction, F (2) = 3.85, p = .021, η2 = .000, was found. Post-hoc tests to follow up the main effect of database revealed that, in 2002, participants reported more nervousness and sadness compared to 1998, which, in turn, reported more somatic symptoms than in 2006. Following the previous pattern, girls reported more nervousness and sadness than boys.

For substances’ use, a significant main effect of database year, F (2) = 120.27, p = .0001, η2 = .015, and gender, F (1) = 61.78, p = .0001, η2 = .004, qualified by a significant Database × Gender interaction, F (2) = 6.77, p = .001, η2 = .001, was found. Post-hoc tests to follow up the main effect of database revealed that participants reported using more substances’ in 2002 compared to 2006, and that boys reported more substances’ use than girls.

When assessing communication, a significant main effect of database year, F (2) = 30.14, p = .0001, η2 = .001, and gender, F (1) = 36.20, p = .0001, η2 = .005, were found. The Database × Gender interaction effect was not significant, p > .05. Post-hoc tests to follow up the main effect of database revealed that participants reported being more at ease when communicating with significant others in 2002 compared to 2006, and that boys reported being more at ease than girls. Specifically, a significant main effect of database year, F (2) = 14.75, p = .0001, η2 = .002, and gender, F (1) = 65.29, p = .0001, η2 = .005, was found for communication with family, and a significant main effect of database year, F (2) = 27.37, p = .0001, η2 = .003, and gender, F (1) = 7,36, p = .007, η2 = .001, was found for communication with friends. The Database × Gender interaction effect was not significant for communication with family, p > .05. However, a significant Database x Gender interaction effect was found for communication with friends, F (2) = 7.50, p = .006, η2 = .001. Post-hoc tests to follow up the main effect of database, revealed that participants reported being more at ease when communicating with family in 2002 compared to 1998 and 2006, and reported being more at ease when communication with friends in 2002 compared to 2006; in both cases, boys reported being more at ease than girls.

Database x gender interaction effects for emotional and somatic symptoms, nervousness and sadness, and for substances’ use show that emotional problems were higher in 2002, particularly in girls, whereas communication with friends was also higher in 2002 but for boys.

3.6 Psychosocial Predictors of Emotional and Problems and Substance Use

Linear multiple regression analysis, using the stepwise method (p<.05), were performed, in order to identify the main factors predicting emotional symptoms and substances’ use (see Table 9).

Table 9.

Psychosocial predictors of emotional and problems and substance use

IV Step DV R2 R2 adjusted β t
Emotional symptoms 1 School commitment .101 .100 -.28 -16.04***
2 Gender .133 .132 .16 9.42***
3 Communication with family .143 .142 -.10 -5.75***
4 Safe neighbourhood .144 .143 .03 2.26*
5 School grade .146 .144 .03 2.11*
Explained variance 14.4%
IV Step DV R2 R2 adjusted β t
Substance Use 1 School grade .107 .106 .27 15.17***
2 School commitment .143 .142 -.19 -10.85***
3 Communication with friends .160 .159 .16 6.87***
4 Gender .166 .165 -.08 -4.62***
5 Communication with significant others .168 .166 -.05 -2.06*
Explained variance 16.6%
Open in a new tab

Note: IV = Independent variable; DV = Dependent variable;

*

p ≤ .05;

***

p ≤ .001.

For emotional symptoms, a model composed of five independent variables was identified, and explained approximately 14% of total variance: less school commitment, β = -.28, t = -16.04, p = .0001, female gender, β = .16, t = 9.42, p = .0001, less communication with family, β = -.10, t = -5.75, p = .0001, higher perception of a safe neighbourhood, β = .03, t = 2.26, p = .024, and lower school grade, β = -28, t = -16.04, p = .0001, were associated to more emotional symptoms. For substances’ use, a model composed of five independent variables was also identified, explaining approximately 17% of the total variance: higher school grade, β = .27, t = 15.17, p = .0001, less school commitment, β = -.19, t = -10.85, p = .0001, more communication with friends, β = .16, t = 6.87, p = .0001, male gender, β = -.08, t = -4.62, p = .0001, and less communication with significant others, β = -.05, t = -2.06, p = .039, were associated to more substances’ use.

4. Discussion

The present study focused on gender and grade differences in individual, family and school variables in the three waves of the nationally representative sample of the HBSC between 1998 and 2006 and intended to analyse the time trends of emotional problems, substance use and related family and school factors as predictors of emotional problems and substance use.

Although its limitations (namely related to the cross sectional nature of the study, to the nature of the sample (non-clinical), and to the fact that only addressed a set of all the main variables that are, according to the literature, relevant for explaining emotional and behavioural problems), these findings may present important implications for the development of prevention and intervention programs, according to grade and gender in order to address specific needs and lighten up their efficacy.

The increase of smoking consumption, regular drinking and drugs consumption in 2002, followed by a subsequent decrease, except for regular drugs consumption, evidences a pattern similar to the pattern obtained in another countries (Kuntsche et al., 2009).

Gender differences found were similar to the literature, with girls reporting more emotional symptoms and boys reporting more substances’ use (Crick & Zahn-Waxler, 2003; Gilliom & Shaw, 2004; Gaspar et al., 2012; Matos, Tomé et al., 2012). Gender comparisons for communication with significant others and perception of a safe neighbourhood were also according to literature (Luk, Farhat, Iannotti, & Simons-Morton, 2010) that is, girls are more sensitive to contextual factors and, although being more “verbal” (Matos et al., 2003) they have the perception of having a poorer interpersonal communication. Other studies using a qualitative approach suggest that girls use interpersonal communication to establish and maintain a close emotional relationship, whereas boys use interpersonal communication in a more instrumental way, to “get things done”, therefore being easier to refer to it as easy, girls tending to be more demanding in relation to what a “good communication” really is (Matos, Simões et al., 2010; Matos, Morgan et al., 2013; Matos, Gaspar et al., 2012, 2013).

Also, developmental differences on emotional and behavioural symptoms, communication with significant others, and school commitment were supported by Luk et al. (2010): along adolescence, emotional and behaviour problems tend to increase (Matos et al., 2000, 2003, 2006, 2008), the quantity and quality of the communication with family tends to decrease, while increasing regarding the peer group (Tomé et al., 2011, 2012).

The new technologies of information and communication, with a special mention to the social networks provided a new insight into interpersonal communication, either with strangers or with significant others. This discussion is far beyond the scope of the present work, but provoked a change in the communication patterns among adolescents (Matos & Ferreira, 2013) that now goes far beyond the communication in “presence”, and is possible even during the time previously devoted to family life.

Finally, the analysis of the psychosocial predictors of emotional problems and substances’ use has shown a set of common factors, school commitment, school grade and gender, and a set of specific factors, communication with family and perception of a safe neighbourhood (regarding emotional symptoms) and communication with friends and, in general, with significant others (regarding substances’ use). These results are similar to the literature (e.g., Luk, et al., 2010; Matos, Simões et al., 2010; Matos, Gaspar et al., 2013) showing, the importance of the interactions between individual and social factors to emotional and behavioral problems.

Mental health problems have a huge impact on adolescents’ well-being, although girls and boys appear to experience environmental constrains and stressful experiences in different ways and they seem to benefit from different protective factors.

Mental health it is a poorer area of intervention in school based health promotion interventions. A new approach to health promotion in Portuguese Schools highlighted the importance of having schools embrace mental health as a major focus, together with sexual and reproductive health, substance use, nutrition, active leisure and interpersonal violence (Matos et al., 2008; Matos, Sampaio et al., 2013) however, except when focusing at very specific social risk contexts (Matos, Gaspar et al. 2012), mental health promotion seems to remain the health promotion “taboo”; this fact has pervasive effects on children and adolescent’s wellbeing, once internalizing and externalizing problems in childhood and adolescence are particularly common and particularly relevant, exactly due to their impact on psychosocial development.

Promoting wellbeing and mental health along childhood and adolescence is not simply a matter of avoiding problematic contexts and health compromising behaviours, recent studies evidenced that increasing social and personal competences (such as self-regulation, negotiating, interpersonal communication and problem solving), and providing social support from significant others can be the golden standard for the promotion of wellbeing and mental health along childhood and adolescence (e.g. Matos et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2010; Matos, Gaspar et al., 2012; Matos, Morgan, 2012; Matos, Sampaio et al., 2013), recommending a positive focus (the health assets) within a global social context.

Finally, other recent policy roadmap (Ottava et al., 2013) raised the question of children and adolescents participation in the design and implementation of interventions targeting themselves. This last issue “making children voices and lives more visible and happier”, become a scientific-policy motto, deserving further empirical and theoretical validation.

5. Conclusion

Mental health promotion includes both the prevention of emotional problems and risk behaviours, and its determinants include individual factors and a range of psychosocial determinants whose identification has a major importance for intervention either universal prevention, selective prevention or indicative prevention, that is in clinical as well as in population interventions.

Mental health problems have a huge impact on adolescents well-being, although girls and boys appear to experience environmental constrains and stressful experiences in different ways, and seem to be differently affected by protective factors. However mental health is often a poorer area in school based interventions.

Gender differences should be considered in future research, as it is necessary to understand in what way there are (still) strong cultural issues, but also if there are biological issues including a different brain maturation that can be related to the gender differences that were highlighted.

Considering the communication with family and peers, the recent boom of social networks and internet-based communication deserves a close follow-up, in order to highlight its positive and negative effects on interpersonal communication along adolescence.

Future studies should empirically test the interactions between individual, social and contextual factors involved in the onset and maintenance of emotional and behavioural problems, using longitudinal designs in order to properly address both developmental issues and the determinants of the onset and maintenance of emotional and behavioural problems.

Empirical and theoretical evidence is also recommended in order to evaluate the relevance and efficacy of the inclusion of children and adolescents as partners, defining own needs and being involved in the design of health promoting programs targeting themselves.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction (IDT), the National Coordination for HIV/AIDS (CNVIH/SIDA), the High Commissioner for Health (ACS), and the Ministry of Education. The authors would like to acknowledge the Centre of Malaria and Tropical Diseases of the New University of Lisbon for their support and the collaboration of the HBSC Portuguese team integrated in the Social Adventure Project, University of Lisbon, for data collection.

References

  1. Bennett D. S, Pitale M, Vora V, Rheingold A. A. Reactive vs. proactive antisocial behavior: Differential correlates of child ADHD symptoms? ournal of Attention Disorders. 2004;7:197–204. doi: 10.1177/108705470400700402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108705470400700402 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Birmaher B, Ryan N. D, Williamson D. E, et al. Childhood and adolescent depression: A review of the past 10 years. Part I. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1996;35:1427–1439. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199611000-00011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199611000-00011 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Buckner J. D, Schmidt N. B. Understanding social anxiety as a risk for alcohol use disorders: Fear of scrutiny, not social interaction fears, prospectively predicts alcohol use disorders. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2009;43:477–483. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.04.012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.04.012 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Canino G, Shrout P, Rubio-Stipec M, Bird H. R, Bravo M, Ramirez R, Martinez-Taboas A. The DSM-IV rates of child and adolescent disorders in Puerto Rico. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2004;61:85–93. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.61.1.85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.1.85 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carter A. S, Wagmiller R. J, Gray S. A. O, McCarthy K. J, Horwitz S. M, Briggs-Gowan M. J. Prevalence of DSM-IV disorder in a representative, healthy birth cohort at school entry: Sociodemographic risks and social adaptation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010;49:686–698. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.03.018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2010.03.018 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cisler J. M, Olatunji B. O, Feldner M. T, Forsyth J. P. Emotion regulation and the anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessement. 2010;32:68–82. doi: 10.1007/s10862-009-9161-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-009-9161-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Copeland W, Shanahan L, Costello E. J, Angold A. Configurations of common childhood psychosocial risk factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2009;50:451–459. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02005.x. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02005.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cortes R. C, Fleming C. B, Mason W. A, Catalano R. F. Risk factors linking maternal depressed mood to growth in adolescent substance use. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2009;17:49–64. doi: 10.1177/1063426608321690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1063426608321690 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Costello J, Mustillo S, Erkanli A, Keeeler G, Angold A. Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2003;60:837–844. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.8.837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.60.8.837 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Crick N. R, Zahn-Waxler C. The development of psychopathology in females and males: Current progress and future challenges. Development and Psychopathology. 2003;15:719–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095457940300035X . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Currie C, Roberts C, Morgan A, Smith R, Settertbulte W, Samdal O, Rasmussen V. Copenhagen: WHO; 2004. HBSC, and WHO cross national study: research protocol for the 2001/2002 survey. [Google Scholar]
  12. Essau C. A, Conradt J, Peterman F. Frequency, comorbidity, and psychosocial impairment of anxiety disorders in German adolescents. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2000;14:263–279. doi: 10.1016/s0887-6185(99)00039-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(99)00039-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Feng X, Shaw D. S, Silk J. S. Developmental trajectories of anxiety symptoms among boys across early and middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2008;117:32–47. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.117.1.32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.117.1.32 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gaspar T, Matos M. G, Ribeiro J. L, Leal I, Erhart M, Ravens-Sieberer U. Health-related quality of life in children and adolescents: subjective wellbeing. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2012;15(1):177–186. doi: 10.5209/rev_sjop.2012.v15.n1.37306. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.37306 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilliom M, Shaw D. S. Co-development of externalizing and internalizing problems in early childhood. Development and Psychopathology. 2004;16:313–334. doi: 10.1017/s0954579404044530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404044530 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hankin B. L. Cognitive vulnerability–stress model of depression during adolescence: Investigating depressive symptom specificity in a multi-wave prospective study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2008;36:999–1014. doi: 10.1007/s10802-008-9228-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9228-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jansen D. E. M. C, Veenstra R, Ormel J, Verhulst F. C, Reijneveld S. A. Early risk factors for being a bully, victim, or bully/victim in late elementary and early secondary education. The longitudinal TRAILS study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:440. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-440 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Jaser S. S, Fear J. M, Reeslund K. L, Champion J. E, Reising M. M, Compas B. E. Maternal sadness and adolescents’ responses to stress in offspring of mothers with and without a history of depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2008;37:736–746. doi: 10.1080/15374410802359742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374410802359742 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kessler R. C, Walters E. E. Epidemiology of DSM-III-R major depression and minor depression among adolescents and young adults in the National Comorbidity Survey. Depression and Anxiety. 1998;7:3–14. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1520-6394(1998)7:1<3::aid-da2>3.0.co;2-f. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6394(1998)7:1<3:: AID-DA2>3.0.CO;2-F . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kessler R. C, Berglund P. A, Borges G, Castilla-Puentes R. C, Glantz M. D, Jaeger S. A, Stang P. E. Smoking and suicidal behaviors in the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases. 2007;195:369–377. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3180303eb8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3180303eb8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. King K. M, Chassin L. Adolescent Stressors, psychopathology, and young adult substance dependence: A prospective study. Journal of Studies on Alchool and Drugs. 2008;69:629–638. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2008.69.629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Knappe S, Beesdo K, Fehm L, Lieb R, Wittchen H. U. Associations of familial risk factors with social fears and social phobia: Evidence for the continuum hypothesis in social anxiety disorder? Journal of Neural Transmission. 2009;116:639–648. doi: 10.1007/s00702-008-0118-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00702-008-0118-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kubik M. Y, Lytle L. A, Birnbaum A. S, Murray D. M, Perry C. L. Prevalence and correlates of depressive symptoms in young adolescents. American Journal of Health Behaviour. 2003;27:546–553. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.27.5.6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.27.5.6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuntsche E, Simons-Morton B, Fotiou A, ter Bogt T, Kokkevi A Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Study. Decrease in Adolescent Cannabis Use From 2002 to 2006 and Links to Evenings Out With Friends in 31 European and North American Countries and Regions. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2009;163(2):119–125. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2008.542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2008.542 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lewinsohn P. M, Rohde P, Seeley J. R. Major depressive disorder in older adolescents: Prevalence, risk factors and clinical implications. Clinical Psychological Review. 1998;18:765–794. doi: 10.1016/s0272-7358(98)00010-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00010-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Luk J. W, Farhat T, Iannotti R. J, Simons-Morton B. G. Parent-child communication and substance use among adolescents: Do father and mother communication play a different role for sons and daughters? Addictive Behaviours. 2010;35:426–431. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.12.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.12.009 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Marmorstein N. R, White H. R, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M. Anxiety as a predictor of age at first use of substances’ and progression to substance use problems among boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2010;38:211–224. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9360-y. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9360-y . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Matos M. G, Ferreira M. Teens Born digital. Lisboa: Editora Coisas de Ler; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  29. Matos M. G, Baptista M. I, Simões C, Gaspar T, Sampaio D, Diniz J. A, Sardinha L. In Social cohesion for mental well-being among adolescents. WHO/HBSC FORUM 2007. Copenhagen, Denmark: 2008. Portugal: from research to practice –promoting positive health for adolescents in schools. [Google Scholar]
  30. Matos M. G, Gaspar T, Cruz J, Neves A. M. New Highlights about Worries, Coping, and Well-being during Childhood and Adolescence. Psychology Research. 2013;3(5):252–260. [Google Scholar]
  31. Matos M. G, Gaspar T, Ferreira M, Tomé G, Camacho I, Reis M, Equipa Aventura Social Keeping a focus on self-regulation and competence: “find your own style”, A school based program targeting at risk adolescents. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies. 2012;12(1):39–48. [Google Scholar]
  32. Matos M. G, Morgan A Social Adventure Team. In Roads to Whatever. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian; 2012. Roads to whatever? Or roads to a self-fulfilled future? : health assets and well-being in children and adolescents; pp. 61–85. [Google Scholar]
  33. Matos M. G, Sampaio D, Baptista I, Equipa Aventura Social . Adolescent’s health education and promotion in Portugal: a case study of planning for sustainable practice. In: Samdal O, Rowling L, editors. The Implementation of health promoting schools, exploring the theories oh what, why and how. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; 2013. pp. 123–126. [Google Scholar]
  34. Matos M. G, Simões C, Batista-Foguet J, Cottaux J. Facteurs personnels et facteurs sociaux associés àla perception de santéet àla perception de bonheur, dans une population adolescente non clinique. L’Encephale. 2010;36(1):39–45. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2008.08.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2008.08.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Matos M. G, Simões C, Tomé G, Gaspar T, Camacho I, Diniz J. A, Social Adventure Team . Relatório preliminar do Estudo HBSC 2006. Lisboa: Edições FMH; 2006. Portuguese adolescents’ health today and in eight years. [Google Scholar]
  36. Matos M. G, Tomé G, Borges A. I, Manso D, Simões C, Ferreira A. Anxiety, depression and coping: CDI, MASC and CRI-Y for screening purposes in schools. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2012;15(1):348–356. doi: 10.5209/rev_sjop.2012.v15.n1.37341. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.37341 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Matos M, Social Adventure Team . Portuguese adolescents’health. Lisboa: FMH/PEPT-Saúde; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  38. Matos M, Social Adventure Team . Portuguese adolescents’ health (Four years later) Lisboa: Edições FMH; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mazza J. J, Fleming C. B, Abbott R. D, Catalano R. F. Identifying trajectories of adolescents’ depressive phenomena: An examination of early risk factors. Journal of Youth Adolescence. 2010;39:579–593. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9406-z. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9406-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. McLaughlin C. A, Green J. G, Gruber M. J, Sampson N. A, Zaslavsky A. M, Kessler R. C. Childhood adversities and adult psychopathology in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) III: Associations with functional impairment related to DSM-IV disorders. Psychological Medicine. 2010;40:847–859. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709991115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991115 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McLaughlin K. A, Hatzenbuehler M. L. Stressful life events, anxiety sensitivity, and internalizing symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2009a;118:659–669. doi: 10.1037/a0016499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016499 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. McLaughlin K. A, Hatzenbuehler M. L. Mechanisms linking stressful life events and mental health problems in a prospective, community-based sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2009b;44:153–160. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.06.019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.06.019 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Merikangas K. R, He J, Burstein M, Swanson S. A, Avenevoli S, Cui L, Swendsen J. Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in US adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Study-Adolescent. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010;49:980–989. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.05.017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2010.05.017 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Merikangas K. R, Nakamura E. F, Kessler D. C. Epidemiology of mental disorders in children and adolescents. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience. 2009;11:7–20. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2009.11.1/krmerikangas. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mesman J, Bongers I, Koot H. M. Preschool developmental pathways to preadolescent internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2001;42:679–689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00763 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Morgan A, Davies M, Ziglio E. Health Assets in a Global Context. London: Springer; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  47. Neumann A, van Lier P. A. C, Frijns T, Meeus W, Koot H. M. Emotional dynamics in the development of early adolescent psychopathology: A one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychopathology. 2011;39:657–669. doi: 10.1007/s10802-011-9509-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9509-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ottava V, Alexander D, Rigby M, Staines A, Hjern A, Blair M, the Riche Project Group Report on the roadmaps for the future, and how to reach them. EU internal report. 2013. Retrieved from http://childresearch.eu .
  49. Ottova V, Erhart M, Vollebergh W, Kökönyei G, Morgan A, Gobina I, The Positive Health Focus Group The role of individual- and Macro-Level Social Determinants on Young Adolescents’ Psychosomatic Complaints. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2012;32(1):126–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431611419510 . [Google Scholar]
  50. Patterson G. R, DeGarmo D. S, Knutson N. Hyperactive and antisocial behaviors: Comorbid or two points in the same process? Development and Psychopathology. 2000;12:91–106. doi: 10.1017/s0954579400001061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400001061 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Piche G, Bergeron L, Cyr M, Berthiaume C. Maternal lifetime depressive/anxiety disorders and children’s internalizing symptoms: The importance of family context. Journal of Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2011;20:176–185. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberts R. E, Andrews J. A, Lewinsohn P. M. Assessment of depression in adolescents using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1990;2:122–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.2.2.122 . [Google Scholar]
  53. Schulte M. T, Ramo D, Brown S. A. Gender differences in factors influencing alcohol use and drinking progression among adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review. 2009;29:535–547. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.003 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Simões C, Carvalho M. Bullying. In: Matos M. G, Sampaio D, editors. Adolescents with health. Dialogue with a generation. Lisboa: Texto Editora; 2007. pp. 104–116. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sprangers M. A. J, Bartels M, Veenhoven R, Baas F, Martin N. G, Mosing M, The GENEQOL Consortium Which patient will feel down, which will be happy? The need to study the genetic disposition of emotional states. Quality of Life Research. 2010;19:1429–1437. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9652-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9652-2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Tobias T, Guiney J, Fonagy G, Mayes L. C, Luyten P. Interpersonal stress regulation and the development of anxiety disorders: An attachment-based developmental framework. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2011;5:1–21. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2011.00055. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2011.00055 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Tomé G, Camacho I, Matos M. G, Diniz A. The Influence of Communication with Family and Peer Group on Well-Being and Risky Behavior of Portuguese. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica. 2011;24(4):747–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722011000400015 . [Google Scholar]
  58. Tomé G, Matos M. G, Simões C, Camacho I, Diniz J. A. How Can Peer Group Influence the Behavior of Adolescents: Explanatory Model. Global Journal of Health Science. 2012;4(2):26–35. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v4n2p26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v4n2p26 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Tremblay R. The development of aggressive behaviour during childhood: What have we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioural Development. 2000;24:129–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016502500383232 . [Google Scholar]
  60. van der Zwaluw C. S, Scholte R. H. J, Vermulst A. A, Buitelaar J. K, Verkes R. J, Engels R. C. M. E. Parental problem drinking, parenting, and adolescent alcohol use. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2008;31:189–200. doi: 10.1007/s10865-007-9146-z. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9146-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. van Oort F. V. A, Verhulst F. C, Ormel J, Huizink A. C. Prospective community study of family stress and anxiety in (pre)adolescents: The TRAILS study. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010;19:483–491. doi: 10.1007/s00787-009-0058-z. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-009-0058-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Barker E. D. Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2006;30:12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025406059968 . [Google Scholar]
  63. Warner V, Wickramaratne P, Weissman M. M. The role of fear and anxiety in the familial risk for major depression: A three-generation study. Psychological Medicine. 2008;38:1543–1556. doi: 10.1017/S0033291708002894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291708002894 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Weiss D. D, Last C. G, editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. Developmental variations in the prevalence and manifestations of anxiety disorders. The developmental psychopathology of anxiety; pp. 27–42. [Google Scholar]
  65. Wetter E. K, Hankin B. L. Mediational pathways through which positive and negative emotionality contribute to anhedonic symptoms of depression: A prospective study of Adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2009. pp. 37pp. 507–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9299-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Willoughby T, Chalmers H, Busseri M. Where’s the syndrome? Examining co-occurrence among multiple “problem” behaviours in youth. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology. 2004;7:1022–1037. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Global Journal of Health Science are provided here courtesy of Canadian Center of Science and Education

RESOURCES