Trauma's distinctive and combined effects on subsequent substance use, mental health, and neurocognitive functioning with the NCANDA sample.

PURPOSE: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and potentially traumatic events (PTEs) contribute to increased substance use, mental health issues, and cognitive impairments. However, there's not enough research on how TBI and PTEs combined impact mental heath, substance use, and neurocognition. METHODS: This study leverages a subset of The National Consortium on Alcohol and Neurodevelopment in Adolescence (NCANDA) multi-site dataset with 551 adolescents to assess the combined and distinctive impacts of TBI, PTEs, and TBI+PTEs (prior to age 18) on substance use, mental health, and neurocognitive outcomes at age 18. RESULTS: TBI, PTEs, and TBI+PTEs predicted greater lifetime substance use and past-year alcohol and cannabis use. PTEs predicted greater internalizing symptoms, while TBI+PTEs predicted greater externalizing symptoms. Varying effects on neurocognitive outcomes included PTEs influencing attention accuracy and TBI+PTEs predicting faster speed in emotion tasks. PTEs predicted greater accuracy in abstraction-related tasks. Associations with working memory were not detected. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study contributes to the growing literature on the complex interplay between TBI, PTEs, and adolescent mental health, substance use, and neurocognition. The developmental implications of trauma via TBIs and/or PTEs during adolescence are considerable and worthy of further investigation.

What is Parental Monitoring?

Parental monitoring is a construct of longstanding interest in multiple fields-but what is it? This paper makes two contributions to the ongoing debate. First, we review how the published literature has defined and operationalized parental monitoring. We show that the monitoring construct has often been defined in an indirect and nonspecific fashion and measured using instruments that vary widely in conceptual content. The result has been a disjointed empirical literature that cannot accurately be described as the unified study of a single construct nor is achieving a cumulative scientific character. Second, we offer a new formulation of the monitoring construct intended to remedy this situation. We define parental monitoring as the set of all behaviors performed by caregivers with the goal of acquiring information about the youth's activities and life. We introduce a taxonomy identifying 5 distinct types of monitoring behaviors (Types 1-5), with each behavior varying along five dimensions (performer, target, frequency, context, style). We distinguish parental monitoring from 16 other parenting constructs it is often conflated with and position monitoring as one element within the broader parent-youth monitoring process: the continuous, dyadic interplay between caregivers and youth as they navigate caregivers attempts' to monitor youth. By offering an explicit and detailed conceptualization of monitoring, we aim to foster more rigorous and impactful research in this area.

A Comparison of Remote Versus in-Person Assessments of Substance Use and Related Constructs Among Adolescents.

Objective: Underreporting of adolescent substance use is a known issue, with format of assessment (in-person vs. remote) a potentially important factor. We investigate whether being assessed remotely (via phone or videoconference) versus in-person affects youth report of substance use patterns, attitudes, and access, hypothesizing remote visits would garner higher levels of substance use reporting and more positive substance use attitudes. Methods: We used the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive DevelopmentSM [ABCD] Study data between 2021-2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants chose whether to complete assessments in-person (n=615; 49% female; meanage=13.9; 57% White) or remotely (n=1,467; 49% female, meanage=13.7; 49% White). Regressions predicted substance use patterns, attitudes, and access, by visit format, controlling for relevant sociodemographic factors. Effect sizes and standardized mean differences are presented. Results: 17% of adolescent participants reported any level of substance use. Youth interviewed remotely reported more negative expectancies of alcohol and cannabis. In addition, those queried remotely were less likely to endorse use), sipping alcohol, eating cannabis), and reported less curiosity or intent to try alcohol, though these differences did not survive an adjustment for multiple testing. Effect sizes ranged from small to medium. Conclusions: Preliminary evidence suggests youth completing remote visits were more likely to disclose negative expectancies toward alcohol and cannabis. Effect sizes were modest, though 37 of 39 variables examined trended toward restricted reporting during remote sessions. Thus, format of substance use assessment should be controlled for, but balanced by other study needs (e.g., increasing accessibility of research to all sociodemographic groups).

Do traumatic events and substance use co-occur during adolescence? Testing three causal etiologic hypotheses.

BACKGROUND: Why do potentially traumatic events (PTEs) and substance use (SU) so commonly co-occur during adolescence? Causal hypotheses developed from the study of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder (SUD) among adults have not yet been subject to rigorous theoretical analysis or empirical tests among adolescents with the precursors to these disorders: PTEs and SU. Establishing causality demands accounting for various factors (e.g. genetics, parent education, race/ethnicity) that distinguish youth endorsing PTEs and SU from those who do not, a step often overlooked in previous research. METHODS: We leveraged nationwide data from a sociodemographically diverse sample of youth (N = 11,468) in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study. PTEs and substance use prevalence were assessed annually. To account for the many pre-existing differences between youth with and without PTE/SU (i.e. confounding bias) and provide rigorous tests of causal hypotheses, we linked within-person changes in PTEs and SU (alcohol, cannabis, nicotine) across repeated measurements and adjusted for time-varying factors (e.g. age, internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and friends' use of substances). RESULTS: Before adjusting for confounding using within-person modeling, PTEs and SU exhibited significant concurrent associations (ßs = .46-1.26, ps < .05) and PTEs prospectively predicted greater SU (ßs = .55-1.43, ps < .05) but not vice versa. After adjustment for confounding, the PTEs exhibited significant concurrent associations for alcohol (ßs = .14-.23, ps < .05) and nicotine (ßs = .16, ps < .05) but not cannabis (ßs = -.01, ps > .05) and PTEs prospectively predicted greater SU (ßs = .28-.55, ps > .05) but not vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: When tested rigorously in a nationwide sample of adolescents, we find support for a model in which PTEs are followed by SU but not for a model in which SU is followed by PTEs. Explanations for why PTSD and SUD co-occur in adults may need further theoretical analysis and adaptation before extension to adolescents.

The independent and combined impact of moral injury and moral distress on post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) across the globe have reported symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moral Injury (MI) has been associated with PTSD in military populations, but is not well studied in healthcare contexts. Moral Distress (MD), a related concept, may enhance understandings of MI and its relation to PTSD among HCWs. This study examined the independent and combined impact of MI and MD on PTSD symptoms in Canadian HCWs during the pandemic.Methods: HCWs participated in an online survey between February and December 2021, with questions regarding sociodemographics, mental health and trauma history (e.g. MI, MD, PTSD, dissociation, depression, anxiety, stress, childhood adversity). Structural equation modelling was used to analyze the independent and combined impact of MI and MD on PTSD symptoms (including dissociation) among the sample when controlling for sex, age, depression, anxiety, stress, and childhood adversity.Results: A structural equation model independently regressing both MI and MD onto PTSD accounted for 74.4% of the variance in PTSD symptoms. Here, MI was strongly and significantly associated with PTSD symptoms (ß = .412, p < .0001) to a higher degree than MD (ß = .187, p < .0001), after controlling for age, sex, depression, anxiety, stress and childhood adversity. A model regressing a combined MD and MI construct onto PTSD predicted approximately 87% of the variance in PTSD symptoms (r2 = .87, p < .0001), with MD/MI strongly and significantly associated with PTSD (ß = .813, p < .0001), after controlling for age, sex, depression, anxiety, stress, and childhood adversity.Conclusion: Our results support a relation between MI and PTSD among HCWs and suggest that a combined MD and MI construct is most strongly associated with PTSD symptoms. Further research is needed better understand the mechanisms through which MD/MI are associated with PTSD.

MI and MD were each independently associated with PTSD symptoms (including dissociation), when controlling for sex, age, childhood adversity, depression, anxiety and stress.Combining both MI and MD constructs into a single latent variable accounted for the greatest proportion of variance explained in PTSD symptoms among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.Results suggest that expanding the construct of MI to include team and systemic organisational MD may be appropriate in the healthcare context.

How Does Parental Monitoring Reduce Adolescent Substance Use? Preliminary Tests of Two Potential Mechanisms.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test two non-exclusive mechanisms by which parental monitoring might reduce teen substance use. The first mechanism (M1) is that monitoring increases punishment for substance use since parents who monitor more are more likely to find out when substance use occurs. The second mechanism (M2) is that monitoring directly prevents/averts teens from using substances in the first place for fear that parents would find out. METHOD: A total of 4,503 teens ages 11-15 years old in 21 communities across the United States completed a survey reporting on parents' monitoring/knowledge and teens' substance use. RESULTS: We found no support for M1: Parents with greater parental monitoring were not more likely to be aware when the teen had used substances (odds ratios = 0.79-0.93, ps = .34-.85), so they could not have increased the rate of punishment. We found support for M2: When asked directly, teens identified instances in which they planned to or had a chance to use substances but did not because their parents got in the way or would have found out (p < .01). Had all those opportunities for substance use occurred rather than been averted by parents, the prevalence of substance use in the sample would have been 1.4 times higher. CONCLUSIONS: In this community-based sample of teens, we failed to support prior punishment-centric theories of how monitoring might reduce teen substance use. Rather, monitoring may directly discourage teens from using substances regardless of whether it increases parents' awareness of substance use or results in more punishment. Replication in other samples and contexts is needed.