Social Support and Its Effects on Adolescent Sexual Risk Taking: A Look at Vulnerable Populations in Baltimore and Johannesburg

Aimee Bruederle, Sinéad Delany-Moretlwe, Kristin N Mmari, Heena Brahmbhatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: We seek to understand whether and how much social support affects adolescent sexual risk-taking in disadvantaged urban environments. Methods: Secondary analyses were conducted on data from the global Wellbeing of Adolescents (15–19 years old) in Vulnerable Environments study. The outcomes of interest were sexual experience, age at sexual debut, number of lifetime sexual partners, and condom use at last sex. Social support scales measuring support at home, at school, and from peers were created, as well as a measure about who raised them. Logistic and linear regressions were used to examine associations between social support and sexual risk-taking after controlling for age, schooling, and family structure. Results: Higher social support was associated with adolescents taking less sexual risk but it was context- and gender-specific. Boys raised by males had lower odds of having sex (adjusted odds ratios (aORs) from.15 (CI =.05–.42) to.19 (.04–.88)). Baltimore girls raised by grandmothers had lower odds of having sex (aOR.34 (.16–.71)). Female support at home was positively associated with girls in Baltimore (aOR.08 (CI =.04–.17)) and Johannesburg (aOR.17 (CI =.03–.87)) having fewer partners. Baltimore girls raised by fathers (aOR 3.78 (CI = 2.33–6.12)) and Johannesburg boys raised by non–biological/step caregivers (aORs from 3.89 (CI = 1.12–13.44) to 8.85 (CI = 6.02–12.99)) were more likely to use condoms. Conclusion: Young men without male support and young women lacking parental support are at particular risk of sexual risk-taking in disadvantaged communities. Parental support can be affected by other contextual factors. Violence in neighborhoods and at home should be considered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)56-62
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Adolescent Health
Volume64
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Baltimore
Vulnerable Populations
Risk-Taking
Social Support
Condoms
Odds Ratio
Sexual Partners
Violence
Fathers
Caregivers
Linear Models
Logistic Models

Keywords

  • Disadvantaged adolescents
  • Sexual risk
  • Social support
  • Urban adolescent health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Social Support and Its Effects on Adolescent Sexual Risk Taking : A Look at Vulnerable Populations in Baltimore and Johannesburg. / Bruederle, Aimee; Delany-Moretlwe, Sinéad; Mmari, Kristin N; Brahmbhatt, Heena.

In: Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 64, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. 56-62.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{910d4f7ca92145f0854b941704dd827f,
title = "Social Support and Its Effects on Adolescent Sexual Risk Taking: A Look at Vulnerable Populations in Baltimore and Johannesburg",
abstract = "Introduction: We seek to understand whether and how much social support affects adolescent sexual risk-taking in disadvantaged urban environments. Methods: Secondary analyses were conducted on data from the global Wellbeing of Adolescents (15–19 years old) in Vulnerable Environments study. The outcomes of interest were sexual experience, age at sexual debut, number of lifetime sexual partners, and condom use at last sex. Social support scales measuring support at home, at school, and from peers were created, as well as a measure about who raised them. Logistic and linear regressions were used to examine associations between social support and sexual risk-taking after controlling for age, schooling, and family structure. Results: Higher social support was associated with adolescents taking less sexual risk but it was context- and gender-specific. Boys raised by males had lower odds of having sex (adjusted odds ratios (aORs) from.15 (CI =.05–.42) to.19 (.04–.88)). Baltimore girls raised by grandmothers had lower odds of having sex (aOR.34 (.16–.71)). Female support at home was positively associated with girls in Baltimore (aOR.08 (CI =.04–.17)) and Johannesburg (aOR.17 (CI =.03–.87)) having fewer partners. Baltimore girls raised by fathers (aOR 3.78 (CI = 2.33–6.12)) and Johannesburg boys raised by non–biological/step caregivers (aORs from 3.89 (CI = 1.12–13.44) to 8.85 (CI = 6.02–12.99)) were more likely to use condoms. Conclusion: Young men without male support and young women lacking parental support are at particular risk of sexual risk-taking in disadvantaged communities. Parental support can be affected by other contextual factors. Violence in neighborhoods and at home should be considered.",
keywords = "Disadvantaged adolescents, Sexual risk, Social support, Urban adolescent health",
author = "Aimee Bruederle and Sin{\'e}ad Delany-Moretlwe and Mmari, {Kristin N} and Heena Brahmbhatt",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.07.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "56--62",
journal = "Journal of Adolescent Health",
issn = "1054-139X",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Social Support and Its Effects on Adolescent Sexual Risk Taking

T2 - A Look at Vulnerable Populations in Baltimore and Johannesburg

AU - Bruederle, Aimee

AU - Delany-Moretlwe, Sinéad

AU - Mmari, Kristin N

AU - Brahmbhatt, Heena

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Introduction: We seek to understand whether and how much social support affects adolescent sexual risk-taking in disadvantaged urban environments. Methods: Secondary analyses were conducted on data from the global Wellbeing of Adolescents (15–19 years old) in Vulnerable Environments study. The outcomes of interest were sexual experience, age at sexual debut, number of lifetime sexual partners, and condom use at last sex. Social support scales measuring support at home, at school, and from peers were created, as well as a measure about who raised them. Logistic and linear regressions were used to examine associations between social support and sexual risk-taking after controlling for age, schooling, and family structure. Results: Higher social support was associated with adolescents taking less sexual risk but it was context- and gender-specific. Boys raised by males had lower odds of having sex (adjusted odds ratios (aORs) from.15 (CI =.05–.42) to.19 (.04–.88)). Baltimore girls raised by grandmothers had lower odds of having sex (aOR.34 (.16–.71)). Female support at home was positively associated with girls in Baltimore (aOR.08 (CI =.04–.17)) and Johannesburg (aOR.17 (CI =.03–.87)) having fewer partners. Baltimore girls raised by fathers (aOR 3.78 (CI = 2.33–6.12)) and Johannesburg boys raised by non–biological/step caregivers (aORs from 3.89 (CI = 1.12–13.44) to 8.85 (CI = 6.02–12.99)) were more likely to use condoms. Conclusion: Young men without male support and young women lacking parental support are at particular risk of sexual risk-taking in disadvantaged communities. Parental support can be affected by other contextual factors. Violence in neighborhoods and at home should be considered.

AB - Introduction: We seek to understand whether and how much social support affects adolescent sexual risk-taking in disadvantaged urban environments. Methods: Secondary analyses were conducted on data from the global Wellbeing of Adolescents (15–19 years old) in Vulnerable Environments study. The outcomes of interest were sexual experience, age at sexual debut, number of lifetime sexual partners, and condom use at last sex. Social support scales measuring support at home, at school, and from peers were created, as well as a measure about who raised them. Logistic and linear regressions were used to examine associations between social support and sexual risk-taking after controlling for age, schooling, and family structure. Results: Higher social support was associated with adolescents taking less sexual risk but it was context- and gender-specific. Boys raised by males had lower odds of having sex (adjusted odds ratios (aORs) from.15 (CI =.05–.42) to.19 (.04–.88)). Baltimore girls raised by grandmothers had lower odds of having sex (aOR.34 (.16–.71)). Female support at home was positively associated with girls in Baltimore (aOR.08 (CI =.04–.17)) and Johannesburg (aOR.17 (CI =.03–.87)) having fewer partners. Baltimore girls raised by fathers (aOR 3.78 (CI = 2.33–6.12)) and Johannesburg boys raised by non–biological/step caregivers (aORs from 3.89 (CI = 1.12–13.44) to 8.85 (CI = 6.02–12.99)) were more likely to use condoms. Conclusion: Young men without male support and young women lacking parental support are at particular risk of sexual risk-taking in disadvantaged communities. Parental support can be affected by other contextual factors. Violence in neighborhoods and at home should be considered.

KW - Disadvantaged adolescents

KW - Sexual risk

KW - Social support

KW - Urban adolescent health

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057862100&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057862100&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.07.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.07.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 30287132

AN - SCOPUS:85057862100

VL - 64

SP - 56

EP - 62

JO - Journal of Adolescent Health

JF - Journal of Adolescent Health

SN - 1054-139X

IS - 1

ER -