Table 3.

Relative Risks for Alcohol Use, Hazardous Alcohol Use, and Drug Use Among Secondary School Students In Botswana

	Relative Risk for Drinking Alcohol (AUDIT score 0 vs. 1+) (95% CI)	Relative Risk for Hazardous Drinking (AUDIT score 0–4 vs. 5+) (95% CI)	Relative Risk for Drug Use (95% CI)
Demographic factors
Male vs. female	1.3 (1.1–1.6)**	1.7 (1.3–2.1)***	2.2 (1.6–3.0)***
Urban vs. peri-urban	1.2 (1.0–1.4)*	1.3 (1.0–1.7)*	1.2 (0.9–1.8)
Models Risks
Sibling drinks alcohol	1.3 (1.2–1.5)***	1.7 (1.4–2.1)***	1.5 (1.2–1.8)***
Problem drinker at home	1.3 (1.2–1.5)***	1.6 (1.4–1.8)***	1.7 (1.4–2.1)***
High peer models risk	1.4 (1.1–1.6)**	1.7 (1.2–2.2) **	1.6 (1.2–2.0)**
Vulnerability risks
High individual vulnerability risk	1.7 (1.5–1.9)***	2.4 (2.0–2.9)***	3.1 (2.6–3.9)***
High social vulnerability risk	1.4 (1.3–1.6)***	1.9 (1.5–2.5)***	2.4 (1.9–2.9)***
Suicidal ideation (SI) in past year vs. no SI	1.6 (1.4–1.8)***	2.3 (2.0–2.6)***	2.5 (2.2–2.9)***
Opportunity risk
High opportunity risk	2.1 (1.9–2.2)***	3.5 (2.9–4.4)***	3.5 (2.9–4.1)***
Support protection
Low support protection	1.2 (1.1–1.4)***	1.5 (1.3–1.8)***	1.7 (1.4–2.1)***
Controls protection
Low individual controls protection	1.5 (1.4–1.7)***	2.1 (1.6–2.6)***	2.7 (2.1–3.5)***
Low social control protection	2.0 (1.8–2.2)***	3.1 (2.6–3.8)***	4.0 (3.3–4.8)***
Models protection
Low models protection	1.5 (1.4–1.7)***	1.9 (1.5–2.3)***	1.8 (1.4–2.3)***
Alcohol use
Alcohol Use vs. No use	–	–	6.9 (5.7–8.5)***
Hazardous Alcohol Use vs. No use	–	–	10.3 (8.3–12.7)***

Composite models risk variable dichotomized, 1 = 1 standard deviation (sd) above the mean z- score or greater, 0 = less than 1 sd above the mean

Composite protective variable dichotomized, 1 = 1 sd below the mean or less, 0 > 1 sd below the mean

*** p-value ≤0.001, ** p-value ≤0.01, *p-value ≤0.05