Desistance motivations among adolescent inhalant users: Latent class and latent profile analyses

Abstract

Background: Substance users report various motivations to desist from drug use. Few studies of desistance motivations among adolescent inhalant users have been conducted, although inhalant use is prevalent in this population.

Objectives: The aims of this study were to (1) determine the prevalence and nature of diverse desistance motivations among adolescent inhalant users; and (2) identify adolescent inhalant user subtypes differing in their reasons for quitting inhalant use and associated characteristics.

Methods: Structured psychiatric interviews were conducted with 279 Missouri adolescents in residential care who were lifetime inhalant users. Latent class and latent profile analyses were used to identify subtypes of adolescent inhalant users differing in their desistance motivations.

Results: A set of models with four latent classes evidenced the best empirical and conceptual fit. One class of inhalant users evidenced high-frequency inhalant use, severe psychiatric symptoms, elevated antisocial attitudes and behaviors, and had the highest levels of agreement with all desistance motivations. In contrast, a second class of inhalant users evidenced the lowest frequency of inhalant use, psychosocial comorbidity, and the lowest levels of all desistance motivations. The remaining two classes reported intermediate levels of agreement with most reasons for desisting from inhalant use, with one class tending to report somewhat higher levels of agreement overall and somewhat higher levels of dysfunction and significantly higher levels of lifetime inhalant use.

Conclusion: Adolescent inhalant users distinguished, on the basis of their reasons for desisting from inhalant use evidence, distinctive clinical profiles that have implications for treatment and prevention of inhalant-use disorders.

• Inhalants
• at-risk youth
• antisocial traits
• desistance
• quitting
• substance abuse

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.