Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKADDAddiction1360-0443 2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs98Original ArticleJames

McIntosh et al.Exposure to drugs among pre-teenage

schoolchildren

RESEARCH REPORT

Exposure to drugs among pre-teenage schoolchildren

James McIntosh, Maria Gannon, Neil McKeganey & Fiona MacDonald
Centre For Drug Misuse Research, University of Glasgow, UK

Correspondence to: Professor James McIntosh Centre for Drug Misuse Research University of Glasgow 89 Dumbarton Road Glasgow G11 6PW UK E-mail: J.McIntosh@socsci.gla.ac.uk Submitted 11 June 2002; initial review completed 2 April 2003; nal version accepted 7 September 2003

ABSTRACT Aims To describe the nature and extent of exposure to drugs in a sample of pre-teenage children and to examine some of the factors that might be associated with it. Participants and design A survey of 1202 1012-year-old children based on a questionnaire administered in schools under examination-type conditions. Findings A third of the children reported having been exposed to drugs in the sense of either having been in situations in which they were being used or of having been offered them. While the most common drug to which they were exposed was cannabis, considerable numbers had also been exposed to more dangerous drugs. The factors which were associated most closely with exposure were drug use by friends or family members, associating with peers who engaged in antisocial activities, the childs own involvement in problem behaviours and the regular consumption of alcohol. Boys and older children were also signicantly more likely to be offered drugs. Conclusion A large proportion of young children are exposed to illicit drugs primarily through use of these drugs by family members and peers. There is a strong association with antisocial behaviour. Attempting to inuence such exposure is challenging but may be one avenue for reducing drug use in adolescents. KEYWORDS Children; drugs; exposure.

RESEARCH REPORT

INTRODUCTION There is growing concern among health educators and others that the age at which young people are starting to use illegal drugs may be decreasing. For example, recent research by McKeganey & Norrie (1999) found that more than one in 10 (11.2%) of a sample of 930 1112-yearolds in Scotland had initiated some form of illegal drug use. However, despite this concern, we know very little about the nature and extent of drug use among preteenage children or of their need for information and support in relation to drugs. The present paper is based upon research which seeks to address that gap in our knowledge by examining the nature and extent of legal and illegal drug use in a population of 1012-year-olds. The research has a number of components: a survey of 1012-year-olds in Glasgow; interviews with children who have started to use illegal drugs; and interviews with children who have been
2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

exposed to illegal drugs but have not started to use them. We have reported elsewhere on the prevalence of drug use within our sample and the role of various factors that appear to be associated with this age groups use of legal and illegal drugs (McKeganey et al. 2003). In this paper we present the results of the survey of pupils in Glasgow as they relate to the childrens exposure to drugs. We describe the nature and extent of that exposure and explore the ways in which it relates to a range of demographic and social factors. While we have some knowledge of the extent of drug use among pre-teenage children, we know virtually nothing about the extent to which they are exposed to drugs, what they are exposed to and who is most at risk of being exposed. Although exposure to drugs is clearly not as serious as actually using them, nevertheless, coming into contact with illegal drugs at such a young age is a serious matter since it exposes the child to considerable risk. It is obvious that without
Addiction, 98, 16151623

1616

James McIntosh et al.

exposure there can be no drug use and, for that reason alone, an understanding of the dynamics and correlates of exposure is likely to have important implications for prevention.

Table 1 Extent of exposure Been where drugs used Yes No Total 368 (30.6) 834 (69.4) 1202 Been offered drugs 174 (14.5) 1028 (85.5) 1202

Total exposed 395 (32.9) 807 (67.1) 1202

SAMPLE AND METHODS The survey was carried out in 2000 in 34 primary and secondary schools in Glasgow and involved 1222 pupils. The schools were selected on the basis of free school meals provision in such a way as to reect the social demography of the city [1]. Three pupils failed to provide their age and a further eight fell outwith the parameters of the study as they were aged 9 or 13 at the time of the survey. Four pupils who failed to answer any of the questions in the questionnaire were excluded from the sample, as were ve who reported using a fake drug, nariam. The resulting sample size was 1202 representing roughly 10% of children within the 1012 age range in State schools in Glasgow. Of those, 149 were aged 10 at the time of the survey, 655 were aged 11 and 398 were aged 12. The mean age of the pupils was 11.2 years. Informed consent to take part in the research was obtained from parents, teachers and pupils. It was stressed to all those involved in the study that at no point would participating schools or individuals be identied and that the condentiality of childrens answers on the questionnaire would be protected at all times. None of the children who were approached declined to participate and none of the parents withheld their consent. All children who were present within a participating school on the day on which the data were collected were asked to complete a standard questionnaire under examinationtype conditions. The completion of the questionnaires was supervised by a trained data collecting team with the class teacher absent but nearby. Eighteen of the pupils (1.5%) were absent from school on the day of data collection. All analyses were carried out within SPSS. For bivariate relationships, testing for overall association was via the likelihood ratio c2 test [2]. The methods used for the multivariate analyses are described later.

people had been using drugs with those who had been offered them. However, being exposed to the use of drugs and actually being offered them are two very different things. Being offered drugs directly challenges the young person to make a decision. If they decide to decline the offer they will have to nd a way of doing so effectively and this may involve having to justify their decision. Being offered drugs may also be accompanied by attempts by others to encourage the individual to take them. Such encouragement may take the form of taunts or bullying or simply a desire on the part of the individual to comply with the group (Oetting & Beauvais 1986; Coggans & McKellar 1994). Whichever form it takes, the risk of the young person taking drugs is clearly heightened in situations in which they are offered them. It is therefore a matter of some concern that around one in seven (14.5%) of the pupils in our survey claimed to have been offered drugs at some time. Although it may be considered less serious than actually being offered drugs, for children to be in situations in which drugs are being used is also highly undesirable. Such exposure provides an opportunity for a curious young person to attempt to satisfy that curiosity and it also creates a context in which offers may be made. Of the 368 pupils who had been in situations in which drugs were being used, 148 (40%) had been offered them.

Nature of exposure As far as individual substances are concerned, the most common drug that the members of our sample were exposed to was cannabis, with around a quarter (22.9%) of them claiming to have been in situations where it was being used (Table 2). While the proportions are lower for other drugs, nevertheless a signicant percentage of the 1012-year-olds in the survey reported having been present in situations where heroin (9.0%), amphetamines (6.7%), cocaine (6.7%) and ecstasy (6.5%) were being used. These proportions represent large numbers of children. For example, they indicate that, for this age group, 90 pupils in every 1000 will have been exposed to the use of heroin. As Table 2 shows, the proportions of children who said they had been offered individual drugs was
Addiction, 98, 16151623

Extent of exposure We begin in this section by examining the extent to which the children in our sample were exposed to drugs, the form that this exposure took and what sorts of drugs they were exposed to. Table 1 shows that around a third (32.9%) of the pupils who took part in the survey reported having been exposed to drugs at some time [3]. Exposure was measured by combining those who said they had been in situations in which
2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

Exposure to drugs among pre-teenage schoolchildren

1617

Table 2 Exposure and accessibility by individual drugs Been where drugs used Solvents Cannabis Mushroom Amphetamines LSD Ecstasy Temgesic Cocaine Heroin Temazepam Other 128 275 40 80 54 78 14 81 108 49 29 (10.6) (22.9) (3.3) (6.7) (4.5) (6.5) (1.2) (6.7) (9.0) (4.1) (2.4) Been offered drugs 51 125 15 25 24 34 3 20 29 16 13 (4.2) (10.4) (1.2) (2.1) (2.0) (2.8) (0.3) (1.7) (2.4) (1.3) (1.1) Total exposed 142 301 45 91 61 90 16 85 113 55 33 (11.8) (25.0) (3.7) (7.6) (5.1) (7.5) (1.3) (7.1) (9.4) (4.6) (2.7) Easily accessible 86 125 35 43 39 52 21 47 57 40 16 (7.6) (10.8) (3.0) (3.7) (3.4) (4.5) (1.8) (4.1) (4.9) (3.5) (1.5)

considerably lower than those who had been exposed to them. Although more than one in 10 (10.4%) reported that they had been offered cannabis, the gures for ecstasy (2.8%), heroin (2.4%), amphetamines (2.1%) and cocaine (1.7%) were much lower. However, while the proportions are low, the number of children in this age group that these results represent is very substantial. For example, on the basis of the gures in Table 2, of every 1000 children in the 1012 age group, 24 will have been offered heroin and 17 will have been offered cocaine. Considerable numbers will also have been offered amphetamines (21), ecstasy (28), LSD (20) and temazepam (13). As an additional measure of the presence and availability of drugs within their environment, we asked our sample how easy they thought it would be for them to obtain particular drugs. Column 4 in Table 2 shows the proportions saying that it would be very easy or quite easy to do so. Approximately one in nine (10.8%) reported that it would be easy to obtain cannabis while substantial proportions also claimed that they would nd heroin (4.9%), ecstasy (4.5%) and cocaine (4.1%) easy to obtain.

Table 3 Exposure and demographic factors Been where drugs used Gender Male Female Age 10 11 12 Family structure Biological parents Stepfamily One parent Been offered drugs Total exposed

Total

213 (36.7) 149 (26.1) 33 (22.8)* 190 (29.9) 144 (37.0) 197 (27.0) 50 (41.0) 112 (37.3)

110 (19.0) 60 (10.5) 11 (7.6) 71 (11.2) 91 (23.4) 92 (12.6)** 25 (20.5) 51 (17.0)

227 (39.1) 161 (28.2) 36 (24.8) 198 (31.2) 161 (41.4) 212 (29.1) 54 (44.3) 121 (40.3)

580 571 145 635 389 729 122 300

* P < 0.01; ** p < 0.05. All demographic factors are signicantly related to exposure with P < 0.001.

Exposure and behavioural factors A number of studies have reported a close association between drug use among young people and certain behavioural characteristics. For example, drug use in this group has been shown to be associated with smoking, alcohol consumption and a range of problem behaviours (Jessor & Jessor 1977; Lavelle et al. 1993; Plant 1994; Miller & Plant 1996; Weinberg et al. 1998). In this section we explore whether similar patterns are in evidence as far as exposure to drugs is concerned. Table 4 shows that there is a strong relationship between cigarette smoking and regular consumption of alcoholdened as those who reported drinking alcohol at least once a monthand exposure to drugs. For example, regular drinkers of alcohol were ve times more likely to report having been offered drugs than were those who did not drink regularly. Table 4 also describes the relationship between our samples exposure to drugs and their engagement in
Addiction, 98, 16151623

Exposure and demographic variables Table 3 depicts the relationship between exposure and the pupils age, gender and family structure. The table shows that boys and older pupils were considerably more likely to have been exposed to drugs and to have been offered them. Table 3 also portrays the relationship between exposure and the structure of the childs family. More specically, it compares children living with their two biological parents with those who were either in single parent families or in a step family. The table shows that those living with two natural parents were signicantly less likely to have been exposed to drugs than those in the other two family types.
2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

1618

James McIntosh et al.

Table 4 Exposure and behavioural factors Been where drugs used Alcohol (at least once a month) Yes No Smoking (at least once a week) Yes No Childs problem behaviours None Low High Been offered drugs Total exposed Total

43 (75.4) 322 (29.2) 15 (71.4) 341 (30.3) 105 (16.3) 162 (42.1) 100 (71.4)

35 (61.4) 136 (12.4) 13 (61.9) 155 (13.8) 25 (3.9) 83 (21.6) 65 (46.4)

45 (78.9) 347 (31.5) 15 (71.4) 368 (32.7) 114 (17.7) 176 (45.7) 105 (75.0)

57 1101 21 1125 643 385 140

All factors are related signicantly to exposure with P < 0.001.

Table 5 Environmental factors and exposure Been where drugs used Family drug use Yes No Deprived area Yes No Been offered drugs Total exposed Total

134 (70.9) 208 (22.4) 276 (34.9)* 83 (24.3)

63 (33.3) 94 (10.1) 125 (15.8) NS 41 (12.0)

140 (74.1) 229 (24.7) 294 (37.2)* 92 (26.9)

189 928 790 342

NS: not signicant. *P < 0.01. Family drug use is related signicantly to exposure with P < 0.001.

problem behaviours of various sorts [4]. It shows a strong statistically signicant relationship between the extent to which the children were involved in problem behaviours and their exposure to drugs. Most strikingly, those pupils with a high involvement in problem behaviours were 12 times more likely to be offered drugs than their low involvement counterparts.

Exposure and environmental factors Table 5 depicts the relationship between exposure and two aspects of childrens environments that previous research has shown to be associated closely with the use of drugs (Hawkins et al. 1992; Brook et al. 1992). These variables are (1) living in a deprived area and (2) having a family member who has taken drugs. Table 5 shows that, while there is a statistically signicant relationship between deprivation [5] and the childrens exposure to situations in which drugs are being used, the association between deprivation and the offer of drugs is not signicant. In contrast, drug use by a family member is associated strongly both with being where drugs are used and with the likelihood of being offered drugs. The pupils were asked: Has anyone in your family ever taken drugs? A total of 189 (16.9%) responded in the afrmative.
2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

Children from families in which someone had used drugs were about three times as likely to have been in a situation where drugs were being used or to have been offered drugs than were children from non-drug-using families. What our data are unable to show is the extent to which the exposure and/or offer of drugs comes directly from the family member as opposed to children from drugusing families happening to be at greater risk of exposure for other reasons. It is likely that the explanation for the association involves both of these processes.

Exposure and nature of friendships Numerous studies have demonstrated the importance of peers in relation to the initiation of drug use by young people (Hawkins et al. 1992; Coggans & McKellar 1994; De Wit et al. 1995; Reed & Rowntree 1997; Farrell & White 1998). Although there is considerable debate about whether this association is a product of peer pressure or peer selection, it is likely that both processes are at work. In short, some young people may be encouraged by friends to experiment with drugs while others may choose their friends partly because of their known association with drugs (Cohen 1977; Sheppard et al. 1985; Coggans & McKellar 1994; Bauman & Ennett 1996; Hart & Hunt 1997). What is not in dispute, however, is that
Addiction, 98, 16151623

Exposure to drugs among pre-teenage schoolchildren

1619

Table 6 Friends and exposure Been where drugs used Friends problem behaviour None Low High Most friends older Yes No Friends drug use Yes No Been offered drugs Total exposed Total

110 (16.9) 128 (41.7) 126 (63.3) 63 (47.7) 293 (28.8) 79 (67.5) 285 (26.6)

31 (4.8) 64 (20.8) 76 (38.2) 34 (25.8) 133 (13.1) 62 (53.0) 109 (10.2)

120 (18.5) 141 (45.9) 131 (65.8) 68 (51.5) 316 (31.1) 83 (70.9) 309 (28.9)

650 307 199 132 1017 117 1071

All factors are related signicantly to exposure with P < 0.001.

young people who use drugs are far more likely to report having drug-using friends (Elliott et al. 1985; Kandel 1986; Hawkins et al. 1992; Reed & Rowntree 1997; Farrell & White 1998). We also know that the friends of young people who use drugs are more likely to be involved in a range of problem behaviours (Weinberg et al. 1998). In this section, we explore the relationship between our samples exposure to drugs and certain characteristics of their friends. Table 6 shows, perhaps not surprisingly, that there is a highly signicant relationship between friends drug use, dened as using drugs at least once a month and the extent to which the children in our sample were exposed to drugs. This table also explores the relationship between exposure and friends involvement in problem behaviours [6]. The table shows that the greater the extent to which their friends were involved in problem behaviours, the more likely the children were to have been where drugs were being used and to have been offered them. It is also striking that even low levels of participation in problem behaviours on the part of friends appeared to predict a substantially increased risk of exposure to drugs on the part of the pupil. While it is not possible, on the basis of our data, to determine whether our samples friends are the source of exposure or offers, it is a reasonable assumption that they are likely to be responsible for a considerable proportion of it. That this is likely to be the case is supported by the fact that there is a highly signicant relationship between friends engagement in problem behaviours and their reported involvement with drugs. Of those friends who were reported to have used drugs, 56.0% exhibited high levels of problem behaviour compared with only 13.1% of non-drug-using friends (P < 0.001). We also examined the extent to which having friends who were older than themselves was predictive of the childrens exposure to drugs. Having older friends was dened in terms of the response older than me to the question How old are most of your friends? Table 6
2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

shows that the likelihood of the children in our sample either having been around when drugs were being used or having been offered them was twice as high when most of their friends were older.

Exposure and family characteristics The literature on young peoples drug use has identied the young persons family as being an important source of risk and of protection against use (Hawkins et al. 1992). Children appear to be most at risk of becoming involved with drugs when family management practices are poor or inconsistent. Following an extensive review of the literature, Hawkins and colleagues conclude that the risk of drug abuse appears to be increased by family management practices characterised by unclear expectations for behaviour, poor monitoring of behaviour, few and inconsistent rewards for positive behaviour, and excessively severe and inconsistent punishment for unwanted behaviour (1992, p. 83). On the other hand, some family characteristics would appear to offer young people a measure of protection against becoming involved with drugs. For example, families in which there are high levels of parental supervision (Chilcoat & Anthony 1996) and where there is warmth, affection and good communication between parent and child (Brook et al. 1990) have been shown to be protective in this way. In this section we examine the way in which one family characteristicthe extent of parental supervision was related to the pupils exposure to drugs [7]. Table 7 shows that the stricter the supervision that was undertaken by parents, the less likely the child was to report exposure to drugs.

Multivariate analysis Having described the results of a bivariate analysis of our data, we now report on the outcome of a multivariate
Addiction, 98, 16151623

1620

James McIntosh et al.

analysis designed to establish the relative signicance of individual variables. The multivariate analysis was carried out using the logistic regression function in SPSS (version 9.0). The explanatory variables were assigned to three groups that were based on their hypothesized proximity to exposure. These groups included demographic variables, family and behavioural variables and, lastly, activities proximate to exposure. In the rst step of the analysis a model was run based on the group of demographic variables. The results were examined to see which variables were linked most closely to exposure. Those variables which reached a signicance level of at least P < 0.05 were included in the next stage of the analysis, modelling the family and behavioural variables. Any variable(s) with signicance P < 0.05 were carried into the third stage model based on activities proximate to exposure. The three groups of explanatory variables were constituted as follows.

week; the regular consumption of alcohol; the extent to which the child and his or her friends engaged in problem behaviours; and whether the children had friends who were mostly older than themselves. The extent of parental supervision was also included in this group.

Group 3: activities proximate to exposure This group consisted of the two variables which we believed would be closest to exposure in the causal chain. These were the use of drugs by friends and the use of drugs by family members. Table 8 summarizes the relationship between overall exposure (having been where drugs were being used and/ or having been offered them) and the variables in the four groups. At level 1 all four variables (age, gender, family structure and deprivation) were signicant. Of these, only family structure remained in the model following the introduction of the six family and behavioural variables at level 2. At this stage of the analysis, parental supervision, having older friends and smoking cigarettes on a weekly basis do not show as signicant. At level 3, the engagement in problem behaviours by the pupils themselves or by their friends and the regular consumption of alcohol remain as signicant predictors of exposure. The two group 3 variablesdrug use by friends and drug use by family membersare also highly signicant.

Group 1: demographic variables This group comprised the age and gender of the child, their exposure to deprivation and whether they lived with a single parent, in a stepfamily or with their two biological parents.

Group 2: family and behavioural variables This group consisted of a combination of family and behavioural variables. The behavioural variables comprised the following; smoking cigarettes at least once a
Table 7 Parental supervision and exposure Parental supervision High Mid Low Been where drugs used 174 (24.2) 129 (39.1) 62 (54.9) Been offered drugs 63 (8.8) 69 (20.9) 40 (35.4) Total exposed 188 (26.1) 140 (42.4) 65 (57.5)

DISCUSSION This paper has examined, for the rst time, the nature and extent of pre-teenage schoolchildrens exposure to drugs and the sorts of factors that are associated with it. The data are based entirely on self-reporting by the children and are therefore subject to an unknown amount of over and/or under reporting. However, the survey did employ a number of measures to safeguard against such distortion. First, all questionnaires were completed anonymously and in the presence of supervisors who were
Table 8 Summary of multivariate relationships analysis

Total 720 330 113

Parental supervision is related signicantly to exposure with P < 0.001.

Level 1 Gender P < 0.001 Age P < 0.001 Family structure P < 0.001 Deprivation P < 0.05

Level 2 Family structure P < 0.05 Friends problem behaviours P < 0.001 Childs problem behaviours P < 0.001 Alcohol at least once a month P < 0.001

Level 3 Friends problem behaviours P < 0.001 Childs problem behaviours P < 0.001 Alcohol at least once a month P < 0.005 Friends drug use P < 0.001 Family drug use P < 0.001

2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

Addiction, 98, 16151623

Exposure to drugs among pre-teenage schoolchildren

1621

independent of the school. Secondly, the children and their parents were assured that their responses would be treated entirely condentially and not seen by anyone other than the members of the research team. Thirdly, any child who claimed to have been exposed to the fake drug (nariam) was excluded from the analysis. Finally, given its condential nature, there was little for a pupil to gain from falsifying his or her responses to the questionnaire. Clearly, any exposure to drugs at this age is a serious matter because it exposes the child to considerable risk. For that reason, the fact that one-third of the 1012-yearolds in our sample had been exposed to drugs is a worrying statistic. While nearly a quarter of our sample reported having been exposed to the use of cannabis, substantial proportions also reported having been in situations where heroin, amphetamines, ecstasy and cocaine were being used. Of particular concern, however, is the fact that one in seven of the pupils reported having actually been offered drugs. For example, the survey indicates that, of every 1000 pupils in the 1012 age group, 104 will have been offered cannabis, 28 will have been offered ecstasy, 24 will have been offered heroin and 17 will have been offered cocaine. Applied nationally, these gures would mean that large numbers of preteenage children in the United Kingdom are being exposed to illegal drugs and are being offered them. The ease with which some of the pupils in this age group believed they could access illegal drugs must also be a source of considerable concern. As we saw, around one in nine thought it would be easy for them to obtain cannabis while nearly one in 20 said it would be easy to get heroin. On the basis of the present survey, it would appear that the factors that predict 1012-year-old childrens exposure to drugs operate on a number of different but interconnected levels. Our data suggest that the primary risk of exposure derives from associations with peoplespecically, family and friendswhose activities either include drug use or are likely to bring them into contact with it. The fact that young people who are involved in problem behaviours of various sorts are also more likely to use drugs is an example of the latter (Weinberg et al. 1998). It was clear from our ndings that children who did not have the sorts of associations described above were considerably less likely to be exposed to the use of drugs or to be offered them. Certain activities also increased the risk of exposure and, especially, the risk of being offered drugs. These included alcohol consumption and the childrens involvement in problem behaviours. One aspect of the childs home environment, parental supervision, was also found to be closely associated with exposure to drugs and with drug offers. It is likely that this factor operates by inuencing the nature of the childs contacts and activities outside the home. Finally,
2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

at the level of the individual, age and gender were both found to be signicant predictors of exposure. It is probably extremely difcult for children to avoid exposure to drugs in home or family environments in which they are being used since the child is there involuntarily and cannot escape readily from them. However, this does not mean that there is no scope for intervention as far as the home is concerned. For example, there is a growing recognition that siblings and other close relatives, such as cousins, may play an important part in introducing young people to drugs (Brook et al. 1988; Merikangas et al. 1992; Hart & Hunt 1997). While little is known about the nature and extent of this inuence, there would nevertheless appear to be some merit in seeking to develop drug education programmes targeted at reducing its effects. As far as their friends are concerned, young people have a greater measure of choice. Unlike the situation with their family, it is usually possible to exit from a friendship. In addition, not only can children and young people get out of certain friendships, they also have the ability to choose their friends in the rst place. It is therefore important that these decisions and choices are inuenced in ways that reduce the likelihood of exposure to drugs. In this context, we believe there is an important role for parents. They need to be made aware of the signicance of friendship choices and to be encouraged to exert as much inuence as possible upon them by offering advice and support and by exercising effective supervision. Certainly, other work has pointed to the importance of parental monitoring as a way of preventing the initiation of drug use among young people (Chilcoat & Anthony 1996; McCardle et al. 2002; Piko & Fitzpartick 2002). Finally, while we hope that the present study has increased our knowledge of the nature and correlates of childrens exposure to drugs, it is clear that more work needs to be done in order to develop our understanding of the circumstances and processes that are involved. In particular, further research of a quantitative nature is required to expand and rene our knowledge of the factors associated with exposure. We are conscious, for example, that the geographically restricted nature of our sample means that caution is required in generalizing from its ndings. There is also, in our view, an important role for qualitative work in elucidating our understanding of the ways in which young people deal with situations in which exposure occurs.

NOTES [1] A stratied sampling approach was adopted. The secondary schools were ranked in 10 ordered groups in
Addiction, 98, 16151623

1622

James McIntosh et al.

[2] [3]

[4]

[5]

accordance with the proportion of the pupils who were in receipt of free school meals. One school was selected from each of these 10 groups. Since it was also considered important to ensure that the selected schools would reect the denominational breakdown of the city, 7 of the selected secondary schools were non-denominational and 3 were Roman Catholic. An eleventh-non-denominational school was added to ensure that the citys minority ethnic communities were represented within the sample. Each of the 11 secondary schools had recognised feeder primary schools and two of these were selected for each of the selected secondary schools. This selection was undertaken on the basis of class size in order to achieve sufciently large samples from the 22 primary schools. In the case of one secondary school, it was necessary to recruit from three primary schools in order to obtain an appropriate sample size. Overall there were 23 primary and 11 secondary schools in the sample. The totals in the bivariate tables vary because not all of the children answered all of the questions. The types of drugs to which the children claimed to have been exposed are listed in Table 2. Of the 32.9% who reported having been exposed, only 5.1% reported having been exposed to solvents alone. These children represent 1.7% of the total sample. If those who were exposed to solvents only are excluded from the analysis, the overall rate of exposure falls very slightly to 31.2%. Information was obtained in the questionnaire on the childrens involvement in the following problem behaviours; carrying a weapon at least once a month; being in trouble with the police at least once a month; having committed acts of vandalism; having had a ride in a stolen car; having taken time off school without permission; and having engaged in theft. A child exhibiting only one of these behaviours was dened as having low involvement in problem behaviours while those reporting two or more were classed as being highly involved. In order to explore the possible link between exposure to drugs and deprivation, we used the childrens home postcodes to determine the deprivation score of their area of residence. The score was derived from the Carstairs-Morris index of deprivation which classies areas on a seven point scale where 1 represents the least deprived area and 7 the most deprived. The index is based on 4 variables; overcrowding, male unemployment, lower social class membership and lack of car ownership (Carstairs & Morris 1991). Consistent with other research which has used this model, we classied areas with a deprivation score of 6 or 7 as being deprived and those with scores of 15 as non-deprived.

[6] Pupils were asked whether they had any friends to whom the following-non-drug-related behaviours applied; having engaged in theft; having been in trouble with the police; having carried weapons; having taken part in vandalism; having truanted; and having ridden in a stolen car. Each behaviour had to have been engaged in at least once a month to qualify for inclusion. Friends who exhibited only one of these behaviours were dened as having low involvement in problem behaviours while those reporting two or more were classed as being highly involved. [7] Parental supervision was dened in terms of 3 variables; the child being allowed to stay out later than 9.30 pm on week nights; the child having stayed out overnight without their parents knowing where they were on at least one occasion; and, their parents not always knowing who their friends are. If a pupils responses featured none of the variables listed above, they were placed in the high parental supervision category. If one of the variables was mentioned they were assigned to the medium group while those to whom two or more of the variables applied were placed in the low parental supervision category.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are extremely grateful to the young people who participated in this study and to the schools in Glasgow and Newcastle who co-operated with the research. The Education Departments in Newcastle and Glasgow also provided valuable assistance in facilitating the study. We are also grateful to Russell Ecob for his assistance with the analysis of an earlier version of this paper. The research on which the paper is based was funded by the Department of Health as part of its Drug Misuse Research Programme. In addition to Professors McIntosh and McKeganey, grantholders on this project included; Dr Eilish Gilvarry, Consultant Psychiatrist, Newcastle and North Tyneside Alcohol and Drug Service; Professor Malcolm Hill, Director, Centre for the Study of the Child and Society, University of Glasgow; Dr Paul McArdle, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and Senior Lecturer, University of Newcastle upon Tyne; and Dr Steven McCarthy, Research Psychologist, Newcastle and North Tyneside Alcohol and Drug service. James McIntosh was funded by the Robertson Trust. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the funding bodies.

REFERENCES
Bauman, K. E. & Ennett, S. T. (1996) On the importance of peer
Addiction, 98, 16151623

2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

Exposure to drugs among pre-teenage schoolchildren

1623

inuence for adolescent drug use: commonly neglected considerations. Addiction, 91, 185198. Brook, J., Brook, D., Gordon, A. S., Whiteman, M. & Cohen, P. (1990) The psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: a family interactional approach. In: Horrocks, J., ed. Genetic. Social and General Psychology Monographs. Washington DC: Heldref Publications. Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Balka, E. B. & Hamburg, B. A. (1992) African-American and Puerto Rican drug use: personality, familial and other environmental risk factors. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 118, 417438. Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A. S. & Brook, D. W. (1988) The role of older brothers in younger brothers drug use viewed in the context of parent and peer inuences. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 151, 5975. Carstairs, V. & Morris, R. (1991) Deprivation and Health in Scotland. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Chilcoat, H. D. & Anthony, J. C. (1996) Impact of parent monitoring on initiation of drug use through late childhood. Journal of American Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 91 100. Coggans, N. & McKellar, S. (1994) Drug use amongst peers: peer pressure or peer preference? Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 1, 1526. Cohen, J. M. (1977) Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology of Education, 50, 227241. De Wit, D. J., Silverman, G., Goodstadt, M. & Stoduto, G. (1995) The construction of risk and protective factor indices for adolescent alcohol and other drug use. Journal of Drug Issues, 25, 837863. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D. & Ageton, S. S. (1985) Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Farrell, A. D. & White, K. S. (1998) Peer inuences and drug use among urban adolescents: family structure and parentadolescent relationship as protective factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 248258. Hart, L. & Hunt, N. (1997) Choosers Not Losers? Drug Offers, Peer Inuences and Drug Decisions Amongst 1116 Year Olds in West Kent. Maidstone, Kent: Invicta Community Care NHS Trust. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F. & Miller, J. Y. (1992) Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64105. Jessor, R. & Jessor, S. L. (1977) Problem Behaviour and Psychoso-

cial Development: a Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press. Kandel, D. B. (1986) Processes of peer inuence in adolescence. In: Gilbertstein, R., ed. Development as Action in Context: Problem Behaviour and Normal Youth Development, pp. 203228. New York: Springer-Verlag. Lavelle, T., Hammersley, R. & Forsyth, A. (1993) Is the addictive personality merely delinquency? Addiction Research, 1, 2737. McCardle, P., Wiegersma, A., Gilvarry, E., Kolte, B., McCarthy, S., Fitzgerald, M., Brinkley, A., Blom, M., Stoeckel, I., Pierolini, A., Michels, I., Johnson, R. & Quensel, S. (2002) European adolescent substance use: the roles of family structure, function and gender. Addiction, 97, 329336. McKeganey, N., McIntosh, J., MacDonald, F., Gilvarry, E., McHardle, P., McCarthy, S. & Hill, M. (2003) Pre-Teens and Illegal Drugs: Use, Offers, Exposure and Prevention. Report submitted to the Department of Health. London: DoH. McKeganey, N. & Norrie, J. (1999) Pre-teen drug misuse in Scotland. Addiction Research, 7, 493507. Merikangas, K. R., Rounsaville, B. J. & Prusoff, B. A. (1992) Familial factors in vulnerability to substance abuse. In: Glantz, M.D. & Pickens, R.W., eds. Vulnerability to Drug Abuse. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Miller, P. & Plant, M. (1996) Drinking, smoking and illicit drug use among 15 and 16 year olds in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal, 313, 394397. Oetting, E. R. & Beauvais, F. (1986) Peer cluster theory: drugs and the adolescent. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 1722. Piko, B. F. & Fitzpartick, K. M. (2002) Without protection: substance use among hungarian adolescents in high-risk settings. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 463466. Plant, M. (1994) Drugs and adolescence. In: Strang, J. & Gossop, M., eds. Heroin Addiction and Drug Policy: the British System, pp. 5565. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reed, M. D. & Rowntree, P. W. (1997) Peer pressure and adolescent substance use. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13, 143180. Sheppard, M. A., Wright, D. & Goodstadt, M. S. (1985) Peer pressure and drug use: exploding the myth. Adolescence, 20, 949 958. Weinberg, N. Z., Rahdert, E., Colliver, J. D. & Glantz, M. D. (1998) Adolescent substance abuse: a review of the past 10 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 252261.

2003 Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

Addiction, 98, 16151623