Uso de drogas Psicoativas entre Estudantes Adolescentes Trabalhadores e não Trabalhadores da Rede Estadual de Ensino de Cuiabá, Mato Grosso

• Ano de defesa: 2006
• Autor(a) principal: Souza, Delma Perpétua Oliveira de [UNIFESP]
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
• Palavras-chave em Português: Trabalho; Estudantes; Drogas psicoativas; Saúde mental; Epidemiologia; Saúde pública; Transtornos relacionados ao uso de substâncias; Adolescente; Work; Adolescent; Psychoactive drugs; Epidemiology; Mental health; Substance-related disorders; Students; Public health
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/10155

Objective: to analyze the prevalence and factors associated with lifetime use of psychoactive drugs among working and non-working adolescent students. Methods: we carried out an analytical cross-sectional study using a clustered sample stratified by type of education. We administered an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire in classroom. Our sample included 2,718 adolescents (993 workers and 1,725 non-workers) enrolled in 1998 in the state school network of Cuiabá, Center-Western Brazil. We considered as lifetime use the consumption of any psychoactive drug at least once in life. We used bivariate and multivariate analysis, including logistic regression and a decision tree based on the CHAID algorithm (Chi-squared automatic interaction Detection). Results: We found 22.7% prevalence of lifetime drug use, excluding alcohol and tobacco. This prevalence was greater among workers (28.5%) than among non-workers (19.3%). Prevalence for individual drugs was 81.0% and 65,8% for alcohol, 43.7% and 26,8% for tobacco, 14.6% and 11,7% for solvents, 8.6% and 4,4% for marijuana, 6.9% and 3,6% for amphetamines, 6.4% and 3,3% for anxiolitics, and 3.2% and 1.4% for cocaine. Absenteeism was a risk factor for drug use among both groups. Other risk factors included poor relationship between parents among workers (OR = 1.53; 95%;CI:1.10-2.12) and poor relationship with father among non-workers (OR = 1.56; 95%;CI:1.14-2.14). Conclusion: Differences and similarities between working and non-working students must be considered when implementing educational strategies aimed at modifying drug use related behavior.