Table 3

Comparing MA Users to High-Risk Youth

Risk Factor

Study

OR (95% CI)

Conclusion


Sexa

Uchida 1995

6.55 (2.34, 18.34)

Females were more likely to use MA than males.


Kim 2002

1.53 (1.27, 1.85)


Shilungton 2003

4.00 (3.49, 4.58)


Rawson 2005

9.53 (5.40, 16.79)


Miura 2006

4.57 (2.92, 7.17)


Ageb

Rawson 2005

2.10 (0.84, 5.26)

Age was no significantly associated with MA use.


Alcohol use

Rawson 2005

1.04 (0.56, 1.95)

No association between a history of alcohol use and MA use


Family history of crimec

Miura 2006

2.00 (1.22, 3.29)

Odds of using MA was higher for youth with family history of crime.


Family history of drug use

Miura 2006

4.70 (2.79, 7.90)

Odds of using MA was higher for youth with family history of drug use.


Family history of alcohol abuse

Uchida 1995

3.61 (1.39, 9.39)

Odds of using MA was higher for youth with family history of alcohol abuse.


Miura 2006

2.94 (1.44, 6.00)


Pooledc

3.16 (1.78, 5.61)


Child abuse

Uchida 1995

3.13 (1.24, 7.92)

Odds of using MA was higher for youth who experienced child abuse; the association was not statistically significant.


Miura 2006

1.49 (0.73, 3.07)


Pooledd

2.04 (0.99, 4.17)


Receiving psychiatric treatment

Miura 2006

6.78 (3.55, 12.94)

Odds of using MA was higher for youth who were receiving psychiatric treatment.


Greater than two admissions to juvenile home

Miura 2006

2.70 (1.77, 4.13)

Odds of using MA was higher for youth with greater than two admissions to juvenile home.


History of violence

Miura 2006

0.35 (0.20, 0.62)

Odds of using MA was lower for youth with history of violence.


Strict parental monitoring

Shillington 2005

0.25 (0.11, 0.57)

Odds of using MA was lower for youth with strict parental monitoring.


a Female = 1, Male = 0

b 13–14 years vs. 15–18 years

c I2 = 0%

d I2 = 34.7%

Russell et al. BMC Pediatrics 2008 8:48   doi:10.1186/1471-2431-8-48

Open Data