Cargando…

Housing mobility protects against alcohol use for children with socioemotional health vulnerabilities: An experimental design

PURPOSE: Neighborhood context may influence alcohol use, but effects may be heterogeneous, and prior evidence is threatened by confounding. We leveraged a housing voucher experiment to test whether housing vouchers' effects on alcohol use differed for families of children with and without socio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thyden, Naomi H., Schmidt, Nicole M., Joshi, Spruha, Kim, Huiyun, Nelson, Toben F., Osypuk, Theresa L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9509446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36121443
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acer.14911
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Neighborhood context may influence alcohol use, but effects may be heterogeneous, and prior evidence is threatened by confounding. We leveraged a housing voucher experiment to test whether housing vouchers' effects on alcohol use differed for families of children with and without socioemotional health or socioeconomic vulnerabilities. TRIAL DESIGN: In the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) study, low‐income families in public housing in five US cities were randomized in 1994 to 1998 to receive one of three treatments: (1) a housing voucher redeemable in a low‐poverty neighborhood plus housing counseling, (2) a housing voucher without locational restriction, or (3) no voucher (control). Alcohol use was assessed 10 to 15 years later (2008 to 2010) in youth ages 13 to 20, N = 4600, and their mothers, N = 3200. METHODS: Using intention‐to‐treat covariate‐adjusted regression models, we interacted MTO treatment with baseline socioemotional health vulnerabilities, testing modifiers of treatment on alcohol use. RESULTS: We found treatment effect modification by socioemotional factors. For youth, MTO voucher treatment, compared with controls, reduced the odds of ever drinking alcohol if youth had behavior problems (OR = 0.26, 95% CI [0.09, 0.72]) or problems at school (OR = 0.46, [0.26, 0.82]). MTO low‐poverty treatment (vs. controls) also reduced the number of drinks if their health required special medicine/equipment (OR = 0.50 [0.32, 0.80]). Yet treatment effects were nonsignificant among youth without socioemotional vulnerabilities. Among mothers of children with learning problems, MTO voucher treatment (vs. controls) reduced past‐month drinking (OR = 0.69 [0.47, 0.99]), but was harmful otherwise (OR = 1.22 [0.99, 1.45]). CONCLUSIONS: For low‐income adolescents with special needs/socioemotional problems, housing vouchers protect against alcohol use.