Is adolescence a sensitive period for a housing mobility experiment’s effects on risky behaviors?

An Experimental Design

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Test whether neighborhood mobility effects on adolescent risky behaviors varies at different developmental ages and gender. Methods: The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) study randomly assigned volunteer families (1994-1997) to receive a Section 8 voucher to move to lower poverty neighborhoods versus a public housing control group. We tested three-way treatment, gender, and age-at-randomization interactions using intent-to-treat linear regression predicting a risky behavior index (RBI; measured in 2002, N = 2,829), defined as the fraction of 10 behaviors the youth reported (six measuring risky substance use [RSU], four measuring risky sexual behavior), and the RSU and risky sexual behavior subscales. Results: The treatment main effect on RBI was nonsignificant for girls (B = -.01, 95% confidence interval -.024 to .014) and harmful for boys (B = .03, 95% confidence interval .009 to .059; treatment-gender interaction p = .01). The treatment, gender, and age interaction was significant for RBI (p = .02) and RSU (p ≤ .001). Treatment boys 10 years or older at randomization were more likely (p < .05) than controls to exhibit RBI and RSU, whereas there was no effect of treatment for boys <10 years. There were no treatment control differences by age for girls' RBI, but girls 9+ years were less likely than girls ≤8 years to exhibit RSU (p < .05). Conclusions: Moving families of boys aged 10 years or older with rental vouchers may have adverse consequences on risky behaviors but may be beneficial for girls' substance use. Developmental windows are different by gender for the effects of improving neighborhood contexts on adolescent risky behavior.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)431–437
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Adolescent Health
Volume60
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Research Design
Adolescent Behavior
Random Allocation
Sexual Behavior
Therapeutics
Public Housing
Confidence Intervals
Poverty
Volunteers
Linear Models
Control Groups

Keywords

  • Adolescence
  • Adolescent behavior
  • Housing
  • Public housing
  • Randomized controlled trial
  • Risky behaviors
  • Sensitive periods

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

Cite this

@article{16af31c8a49144cfa0e2e7d7f0ac73dd,
title = "Is adolescence a sensitive period for a housing mobility experiment’s effects on risky behaviors?: An Experimental Design",
abstract = "Purpose: Test whether neighborhood mobility effects on adolescent risky behaviors varies at different developmental ages and gender. Methods: The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) study randomly assigned volunteer families (1994-1997) to receive a Section 8 voucher to move to lower poverty neighborhoods versus a public housing control group. We tested three-way treatment, gender, and age-at-randomization interactions using intent-to-treat linear regression predicting a risky behavior index (RBI; measured in 2002, N = 2,829), defined as the fraction of 10 behaviors the youth reported (six measuring risky substance use [RSU], four measuring risky sexual behavior), and the RSU and risky sexual behavior subscales. Results: The treatment main effect on RBI was nonsignificant for girls (B = -.01, 95{\%} confidence interval -.024 to .014) and harmful for boys (B = .03, 95{\%} confidence interval .009 to .059; treatment-gender interaction p = .01). The treatment, gender, and age interaction was significant for RBI (p = .02) and RSU (p ≤ .001). Treatment boys 10 years or older at randomization were more likely (p < .05) than controls to exhibit RBI and RSU, whereas there was no effect of treatment for boys <10 years. There were no treatment control differences by age for girls' RBI, but girls 9+ years were less likely than girls ≤8 years to exhibit RSU (p < .05). Conclusions: Moving families of boys aged 10 years or older with rental vouchers may have adverse consequences on risky behaviors but may be beneficial for girls' substance use. Developmental windows are different by gender for the effects of improving neighborhood contexts on adolescent risky behavior.",
keywords = "Adolescence, Adolescent behavior, Housing, Public housing, Randomized controlled trial, Risky behaviors, Sensitive periods",
author = "Schmidt, {Nicole M.} and Glymour, {M. Maria} and Osypuk, {Theresa L.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.10.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "431–437",
journal = "Journal of Adolescent Health",
issn = "1054-139X",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is adolescence a sensitive period for a housing mobility experiment’s effects on risky behaviors?

T2 - An Experimental Design

AU - Schmidt, Nicole M.

AU - Glymour, M. Maria

AU - Osypuk, Theresa L.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Purpose: Test whether neighborhood mobility effects on adolescent risky behaviors varies at different developmental ages and gender. Methods: The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) study randomly assigned volunteer families (1994-1997) to receive a Section 8 voucher to move to lower poverty neighborhoods versus a public housing control group. We tested three-way treatment, gender, and age-at-randomization interactions using intent-to-treat linear regression predicting a risky behavior index (RBI; measured in 2002, N = 2,829), defined as the fraction of 10 behaviors the youth reported (six measuring risky substance use [RSU], four measuring risky sexual behavior), and the RSU and risky sexual behavior subscales. Results: The treatment main effect on RBI was nonsignificant for girls (B = -.01, 95% confidence interval -.024 to .014) and harmful for boys (B = .03, 95% confidence interval .009 to .059; treatment-gender interaction p = .01). The treatment, gender, and age interaction was significant for RBI (p = .02) and RSU (p ≤ .001). Treatment boys 10 years or older at randomization were more likely (p < .05) than controls to exhibit RBI and RSU, whereas there was no effect of treatment for boys <10 years. There were no treatment control differences by age for girls' RBI, but girls 9+ years were less likely than girls ≤8 years to exhibit RSU (p < .05). Conclusions: Moving families of boys aged 10 years or older with rental vouchers may have adverse consequences on risky behaviors but may be beneficial for girls' substance use. Developmental windows are different by gender for the effects of improving neighborhood contexts on adolescent risky behavior.

AB - Purpose: Test whether neighborhood mobility effects on adolescent risky behaviors varies at different developmental ages and gender. Methods: The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) study randomly assigned volunteer families (1994-1997) to receive a Section 8 voucher to move to lower poverty neighborhoods versus a public housing control group. We tested three-way treatment, gender, and age-at-randomization interactions using intent-to-treat linear regression predicting a risky behavior index (RBI; measured in 2002, N = 2,829), defined as the fraction of 10 behaviors the youth reported (six measuring risky substance use [RSU], four measuring risky sexual behavior), and the RSU and risky sexual behavior subscales. Results: The treatment main effect on RBI was nonsignificant for girls (B = -.01, 95% confidence interval -.024 to .014) and harmful for boys (B = .03, 95% confidence interval .009 to .059; treatment-gender interaction p = .01). The treatment, gender, and age interaction was significant for RBI (p = .02) and RSU (p ≤ .001). Treatment boys 10 years or older at randomization were more likely (p < .05) than controls to exhibit RBI and RSU, whereas there was no effect of treatment for boys <10 years. There were no treatment control differences by age for girls' RBI, but girls 9+ years were less likely than girls ≤8 years to exhibit RSU (p < .05). Conclusions: Moving families of boys aged 10 years or older with rental vouchers may have adverse consequences on risky behaviors but may be beneficial for girls' substance use. Developmental windows are different by gender for the effects of improving neighborhood contexts on adolescent risky behavior.

KW - Adolescence

KW - Adolescent behavior

KW - Housing

KW - Public housing

KW - Randomized controlled trial

KW - Risky behaviors

KW - Sensitive periods

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008173509&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008173509&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.10.022

DO - 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.10.022

M3 - Article

VL - 60

SP - 431

EP - 437

JO - Journal of Adolescent Health

JF - Journal of Adolescent Health

SN - 1054-139X

IS - 4

ER -