Parental protective and risk factors regarding cannabis use in adolescence: A national sample from the Chilean school population

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow chart of research sample size

Table 1. Summary of statistics. Weighted sample characteristics (number, percentage, mean and standard error)

Variables	items	n	%wt (99% CI)	Mwt (99% CI)
Size		43,060	100 (100–100)
Age (range: 12–19)	1			15.5 (15.4–15.6)
Gender (male)	1	20,350	47.6 (45.8–49.4)
Working (yes)	1	6,846	16.2 (15.3–17.1)
Type of School (SES)	1
Public (Low-SES)		15,508	33.0 (30.2–35.9)
Mixed-Funds (Middle-SES)		19,647	60.2 (57.2–63.2)
Private (High-SES)		7,898	6.8 (5.8–8.0)
Adolescent Alcohol Use within the Past Year (yes)	1	26,031	60.6 (59.2–62.0)
School Risk (range: 0–3)	3			1.5 (1.4–1.5)
Peer Cannabis Use (range: 1–5)	1			1.9 (1.8–1.9)
Current Sibling Drug Use (range: 1–4) *	1			1.6 (1.5–1.6)
Past Parental Drug Use (yes)	1	15,584	38.1 (37.0–39.3)
Parental Monitoring: Whereabouts (range: 1–3)	1			2.7 (2.7–2.7)
Parental Monitoring: School Activities (range: 1–4)	1			3.3 (3.2–3.3)
Parental Monitoring: Friends (range: 1–3)	1			2.3 (2.3–2.3)
Parental Attitude Toward Cannabis Use (range: 1–10)	2			8.0 (8.0–8.1)
Adolescent Cannabis Use within the Past Year (yes)	1	8,947	22.9 (21.7–24.1)
Adolescent Problematic Cannabis Use (yes)	6	1,585	4.5 (4.0–5.1)

* The majority of the participants had at least one sibling (89.3%).

n = number; %_wt = weighted percentage; CI = confidence interval; M_wt = weighted mean. Type of school is a proxy of socio economic status (SES).

Table 2. Results of the binary logistic regression analysis for adolescent cannabis use within the previous year

	Step1: Univariate analyses		Step 2: Multivariate analysis ^a		Step 3: Interaction terms ^a, b
(Ref. Category: No cannabis use within the past year)	ORwt (99% CI)	p (BH method)	ORwt (99% CI)	p (BH method)	ORwt (99% CI)	p (BH method)
Intercept			0.004 (0.002–0.009)	<.001 (significant)
Perceived Past Parental Drug Use (Yes)	4.12 (3.70–4.58)	<.001 (significant)	2.33 (2.06–2.64)	<.001 (significant)
Parental Monitoring: Whereabouts	0.48 (0.44–0.52)	<.001 (significant)	0.67 (0.61–0.74)	<.001 (significant)
Parental Monitoring: School Activities	0.65 (0.61–0.70)	<.001 (significant)	0.87 (0.80–0.95)	<.001 (significant)
Parental Monitoring: Friends	0.83 (0.77–0.89)	<.001 (significant)	1.07 (0.98–1.17)	.046 (not significant)
Parental Attitude Toward Cannabis Use	0.92 (0.91–0.94)	<.001 (significant)	0.98 (0.96–0.99)	.001 (significant)
PM-W * PPDU (Yes)					1.11 (0.89–1.38)	.243 (not significant)
PM-SA * PPDU (Yes)					1.20 (1.03–1.40)	.003 (significant)
PATMU * PPDU (Yes)					0.98 (0.94–1.02)	.234 (not significant)

a: Controlling for age, gender, work, type of school (SES), adolescents’ alcohol use within the previous year, school risk, peer cannabis use, and siblings’ drug use.

b: Interactions were assessed only for significant protective factors in step 2.

OR_wt = weighted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; p = p-value; BH method = Benjamini-Hochberg method; PPDU = Perceived Past Parental Drug Use; PM-W = Parental Monitoring: Whereabouts; PM-SA = Parental Monitoring: School Activities; PATMU = Parental Attitude Toward cannabis Use.

n = 43,060.

Table 3. Results of the binary logistic regression analysis for adolescent problematic cannabis use (subsample: adolescents using cannabis)

	Step1: Univariate analyses		Step 2: Multivariate analysis ^a		Step 3: Interaction terms ^a, b
(Ref. Category: No problematic cannabis use)	ORwt (99% CI)	p (BH method)	ORwt (99% CI)	p (BH method)	ORwt (99% CI)	p (BH method)
Intercept			3.49 (0.73–16.80)	.040 (not significant)
Perceived Past Parental Drug Use (Yes)	0.94 (0.74–1.19)	.471 (not significant)	0.81 (0.64–1.03)	.021 (not significant)
Parental Monitoring: Whereabouts	0.59 (0.51–0.70)	<.001 (significant)	0.67 (0.57–0.78)	<.001 (significant)
Parental Monitoring: School Activities	0.83 (0.72–0.97)	.001 (significant)	0.96 (0.82–1.12)	.459 (not significant)
Parental Monitoring: Friends	0.72 (0.61–0.85)	<.001 (significant)	0.84 (0.70–0.99)	.008 (not significant)
Parental Attitude Toward Cannabis Use	0.92 (0.88–0.95)	<.001 (significant)	0.95 (0.91–0.98)	<.001 (significant)
PM-W * PPDU (Yes)					1.02 (0.72–1.44)	.886 (not significant)
PATMU * PPDU (Yes)					1.01 (0.93–1.09)	.798 (not significant)

a: Controlling for age, gender, work, type of school (SES), adolescents’ alcohol use within the previous year, school risk, peer cannabis use, and siblings’ drug use.

b: Interactions were assessed for only significant protective factors in step 2.

Note 1: OR_wt = weighted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; p = p-value; BH method = Benjamini-Hochberg method; PPDU = Perceived Past Parental Drug Use; PM-W = Parental Monitoring: Whereabouts; PATMU = Parental Attitude Toward Marijuana Use.

n = 8,946.