Comparison of health-risk behaviours among students in alternative high schools from New Zealand and the USA

Investigating school absenteeism and refusal among Australian children and adolescents using Apriori association rule mining

Identifying and determining the multitude of reasons behind school absences of students is often challenging. This study aims to uncover the hidden reasons for school absence in children and adolescents. The analysis is conducted on a national survey that includes 2967 Australian children and adolescents aged 11-17. The Apriori association rule generator of machine learning techniques and binary logistic regression are used to identify the significant predictors of school absences. Out of 2484, 83.7% (n = 2079) aged (11-17) years children and adolescents have missed school for various reasons, 42.28% (n = 879) are (11-15) years old, 24.52% (n = 609) and 16.9% (n = 420) are 16- and 17-years old adolescents respectively. A considerable proportion of adolescents, specifically 16.4% (n = 407) and 23.4% (n = 486) of 16 and 17 years old, respectively, have selected 'refused to say' as their reason for not attending school. It also highlights the negative outcomes associated with undisclosed reasons for school absence, such as bullying, excessive internet/gaming, reduced family involvement, suicide attempts, and existential hopelessness. The findings of the national survey underscore the importance of addressing these undisclosed reasons for school absence to improve the overall well-being and educational outcomes of children and adolescents.

Correlates of mental health problems among students in Texas alternative high schools and school-level efforts to address mental health

Students in alternative high schools (AHSs) are an understudied population who experience disproportionate levels of risk factors that contribute to mental health problems. Using logistic regression, we explored associations between mental health problems and risk and protective factors among students in Texas AHSs (n = 515; mean age 17.1 years; 51% female, 78% youth of color, 64% eligible for free/reduced lunch). Principals (n = 14) and lead health educators (n = 14) reported on school-level efforts to address mental health. Students reported, on average, 1.55 of 4 mental health problems in the past year. Logistic regression indicated that greater number of adverse childhood experiences, lower self-esteem, female gender, and sleep disruption (getting <8 h of sleep per night) were common contributors to symptoms of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and PTSD with models showing medium-to-large effects (AUC: 0.73-0.81). We assessed school-level efforts to address mental health using descriptive statistics. At the school level, most (>50%) principals reported having policies and services to support student mental health, with the exception of having mental health/social services staff represented on school health councils (36%) and having Gay-Straight Alliances (21%). Most lead health educators (86%) reported educating AHS students about mental health, and many (57%) reported receiving professional development in mental health. Future research with a larger number of schools is needed to analyze whether school policies are statistically associated with student-level mental health outcomes. Such multi-level research can inform policies and practices for AHS student mental health.

Poly-substance use and sexual risk behaviours: a cross-sectional comparison of adolescents in mainstream and alternative education settings

BACKGROUND

Surveys of young people under-represent those in alternative education settings (AES), potentially disguising health inequalities. We present the first quantitative UK evidence of health inequalities between AES and mainstream education school (MES) pupils, assessing whether observed inequalities are attributable to socioeconomic, familial, educational and peer factors.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, self-reported data on individual- and poly-substance use (PSU: combined tobacco, alcohol and cannabis use) and sexual risk-taking from 219 pupils in AES (mean age 15.9 years) were compared with data from 4024 pupils in MES (mean age 15.5 years). Data were collected from 2008 to 2009 as part of the quasi-experimental evaluation of Healthy Respect 2 (HR2).

RESULTS

AES pupils reported higher levels of substance use, including tobacco use, weekly drunkenness, using cannabis at least once a week and engaging in PSU at least once a week. AES pupils also reported higher levels of sexual health risk behaviours than their MES counterparts, including: earlier sexual activity; less protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs); and having 3+ lifetime sexual partners. In multivariate analyses, inequalities in sexual risk-taking were fully explained after adjusting for higher deprivation, lower parental monitoring, lower parent-child connectedness, school disengagement and heightened intentions towards early parenthood among AES vs MES pupils. However, an increased risk (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.15, 2.60) of weekly PSU was found for AES vs MES pupils after adjusting for these factors and the influence of peer behaviours.

CONCLUSION

AES pupils are more likely to engage in health risk behaviours, including PSU and sexual risk-taking, compared with MES pupils. AES pupils are a vulnerable group who may not be easily targeted by conventional population-level public health programmes. Health promotion interventions need to be tailored and contextualised for AES pupils, in particular for sexual health and PSU. These could be included within interventions designed to promote broader outcomes such as mental wellbeing, educational engagement, raise future aspirations and promote resilience.

Suicidal ideation, suicidal behaviors, and attitudes towards suicide of adolescents enrolled in the Alternative Learning System in Manila, Philippines-a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Globally, suicide is a significant cause of death among adolescents. Previous studies conducted in high-income countries suggest that students in alternative schools are more likely to engage in suicidal behaviors than those in formal schools. This study aimed to document suicidal ideation and behaviors among adolescent learners enrolled in the Alternative Learning System (ALS) in Manila, Philippines.

METHODS

A mixed methods study was conducted in 24 ALS centers in the city of Manila. ALS centers were stratified according to congressional district and selected using probability proportionate sampling. A cross-sectional survey to determine attitudes towards suicide and prevalence of suicidal ideation and behaviors was administered to 171 learners aged 13 to 17 years old. In-depth interviews with 18 teachers and 12 learners were conducted to explore the school psychosocial environment's role on learners' suicidal ideation and behaviors. Exploratory factor analysis was used to extract attitude factors. Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test were used to identify differences in sociodemographic characteristics and attitudes towards suicide between learners with or without suicidal ideation or behaviors. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Non-specific active thoughts were the most common type of lifetime suicidal ideation (40.9%) while passive ideation was the most common in the past month (13.5%). Aborted suicide attempt was the most frequent behavior in both lifetime (16.4%) and in the past month (4.7%). Non-fatal suicide attempt in the past month was 2.3%, reaching 12.9% for the entire lifetime. Age, sex, education, and attitudes towards suicide were significantly associated with suicidal ideation or behavior. Thematic analysis showed five themes: (1) fostering belongingness, (2) securing learners' safety, (3) teaching philosophy, (4) teacher and learner beliefs towards suicidal behavior, and (5) availability of school-offered and community-based services.

CONCLUSION

Suicidal ideation and behaviors are prevalent among adolescent ALS learners. This study also showed a significant difference in attitudes towards suicide and sociodemographic characteristics between learners with and without suicidal ideation behaviors. It also suggests that the school psychosocial environment, through social norms and learner-teacher interactions, can potentially prevent progression of suicidal ideation to behavior, influence help-seeking, and promote mental health among learners.

Recovery schools for improving behavioral and academic outcomes among students in recovery from substance use disorders: a systematic review

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of recovery schools on student behavioral and academic outcomes, compared to the effects of non-recovery schools. The review summarizes evidence from one quasi-experimental study (with a total of 194 participants) that had potential serious risk of bias due to confounding. Sizable portions of youth are in recovery from substance use disorders, and many youth will return to use after receiving substance use treatment. Youth spend most of their waking hours at school, and thus schools are important social environments for youth in recovery from substance use disorders. Recovery schools have been identified as educational programs that may help support youth in recovery from substance use disorders. This review focused on two types of recovery schools: RHSs, which are schools that award secondary school diplomas and offer a range of therapeutic services in addition to standard educational curricula; and CRCs, which offer therapeutic and sober support services on college campuses. This review looked at whether recovery schools (RHSs or CRCs) affect academic success and substance use outcomes among students, compared to similar students who are not enrolled in recovery schools.

Plain language summary

There is insufficient evidence to know whether recovery high schools and collegiate recovery communities are effective: Evidence that recovery high schools (RHSs) may improve academic and substance use outcomes is based on the findings from a single study with a serious risk of bias.The review in brief: Very limited evidence addresses the effectiveness of recovery high schools (RHSs). There is no rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of collegiate recovery communities (CRCs).It is unclear whether CRCs are effective in promoting academic success and reducing substance use among college students.What is the aim of this review?: This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of recovery schools on student behavioral and academic outcomes, compared to the effects of non-recovery schools. The review summarizes evidence from one quasi-experimental study (with a total of 194 participants) that had potential serious risk of bias due to confounding.What are the main findings of this review?: Sizable portions of youth are in recovery from substance use disorders, and many youth will return to use after receiving substance use treatment. Youth spend most of their waking hours at school, and thus schools are important social environments for youth in recovery from substance use disorders. Recovery schools have been identified as educational programs that may help support youth in recovery from substance use disorders.This review focused on two types of recovery schools: RHSs, which are schools that award secondary school diplomas and offer a range of therapeutic services in addition to standard educational curricula; and CRCs, which offer therapeutic and sober support services on college campuses.This review looked at whether recovery schools (RHSs or CRCs) affect academic success and substance use outcomes among students, compared to similar students who are not enrolled in recovery schools.What studies are included?: The included study of recovery high schools used a controlled quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design and reported on the following outcomes: grade point average, truancy, school absenteeism, alcohol use, marijuana use, other drug use, and abstinence from alcohol/drugs. The included study focused on a sample of U.S. high school students. There were no eligible studies of CRCs.What do the findings of this review mean?: Findings from this review indicate insufficient evidence on the effects of recovery schools on student well-being. Although there is some indication RHSs may improve academic and substance use outcomes, this is based on the findings from a single study. There is no available evidence on the effects of CRCs.No strong conclusions can be drawn at this time, given the lack of available evidence on RHSs and CRCs, and the serious risk of bias in the one RHS study included in the review. The evidence from this review suggests there is a clear need for additional rigorous evaluations of recovery school effects prior to widespread implementation.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies until September 2018. This Campbell systematic review was published in 2018.

Executive Summary/Abstract

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) among youth are a major public health problem. In the United States, for example, the incidence of SUDs increases steadily after age 12 and peaks among youth ages 18-23 (White, Evans, Ali, Achara-Abrahams, & King, 2009). Although not every youth who experiments with alcohol or illicit drugs is diagnosed with an SUD, approximately 7-9% of 12-24 year olds in the United States were admitted for public SUD treatment in 2013 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2016). Recovery from an SUD involves reduction or complete abstinence of use, defined broadly as "voluntarily sustained control over substance use, which maximises health and wellbeing and participation in the rights, roles and responsibilities of society" (UK Drug Policy Commission, 2008). However, SUDs are often experienced as chronic conditions; among youth who successfully complete substance use treatment, approximately 45-70% return to substance use within months of treatment discharge (Anderson, Ramo, Schulte, Cummins, & Brown, 2007; Brown, D'Amico, McCarthy, & Tapert, 2001; Ramo, Prince, Roesch, & Brown, 2012; White et al., 2004). Thus, multiple treatment episodes and ongoing recovery supports after treatment are often necessary to assist with the recovery process (Brown et al., 2001; Ramo et al., 2012; White et al., 2004).Success and engagement at school and in postsecondary education are critical to healthy youth development. For youth in recovery from SUDs, school attendance, engagement, and achievement build human capital by motivating personal growth, creating new opportunities and social networks, and increasing life satisfaction and meaning (Keane, 2011; Terrion, 2012; 2014). Upon discharge from formal substance use treatment settings, schools become one of the most important social environments in the lives of youth with SUDs. Healthy school peer environments can enable youth to replace substance use behaviors and norms with healthy activities and prosocial, sober peers. Conversely, many school environments may be risky for youth in recovery from SUDs due to perceived substance use among peers, availability of drugs or alcohol, and substance-approving norms on campus (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2011; Spear & Skala, 1995; Wambeam, Canen, Linkenbach, & Otto, 2014).Given the many social and environmental challenges faced by youth in recovery from substance use, recovery-specific institutional supports are increasingly being linked to educational settings. The two primary types of education-based continuing care supports for youth in recovery, defined under the umbrella term of "recovery schools" for this review, are recovery high schools (RHSs) and collegiate recovery communities (CRCs). RHSs are secondary schools that provide standard high school education and award secondary school diplomas, but also include therapeutic programming aimed at promoting recovery (e.g., group check-ins, community service, counseling sessions). CRCs also provide recovery oriented support services (e.g., self-help groups, counseling sessions, sober dorms) for students, but are embedded within larger college or university settings. The primary aims of RHSs and CRCs are to promote abstinence and prevent relapse among students, and thus ultimately improve students' academic success.OBJECTIVES: This review summarized and synthesized the available research evidence on the effects of recovery schools for improving academic success and behavioural outcomes among high school and college students who are in recovery from substance use. The specific research questions that guided the review are as follows: 1. What effect does recovery school attendance (versus attending a non-recovery or traditional school setting) have on academic outcomes for students in recovery from substance use? Specifically (by program type): a. For recovery high schools: what are the effects on measures of academic achievement, high school completion, and college enrolment?b. For collegiate recovery communities: what are the effects on measures of academic achievement and college completion?2. What effect does recovery school attendance have on substance use outcomes for students in recovery from substance use? Specifically, what are the effects on alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or other substance use?3. Do the effects of recovery schools on students' outcomes vary according to the race/ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status of the students?4. Do the effects of recovery schools on students' outcomes vary according to existing mental health comorbidity status or juvenile justice involvement of the students? SEARCH METHODS: We aimed to identify all published and unpublished literature on recovery schools by using a comprehensive and systematic literature search. We searched multiple electronic databases, research registers, grey literature sources, and reference lists from prior reviews; and contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included in the review if they met the following criteria:Types of studies: Randomized controlled trial (RCT), quasi-randomized controlled trial (QRCT), or controlled quasi-experimental design (QED).Types of participants: Students in recovery from substance use who were enrolled part-time or full-time in secondary (high school) or postsecondary (college or university) educational institutions.Types of interventions: Recovery schools broadly defined as educational institutions, or programs at educational institutions, developed specifically for students in recovery and that address recovery needs in addition to academic development.Types of comparisons: Traditional educational programs or services that did not explicitly have a substance use recovery focus.Types of outcome measures: The review focused on primary outcomes in the following two domains: academic performance (e.g., achievement test scores, grade-point average, high school completion, school attendance, college enrolment, college completion) and substance use (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, stimulant, mixed drug use, or other illicit drug use). Studies that met all other eligibility criteria were considered eligible for the narrative review portion of this review even if they did not report outcomes in one of the primary outcome domains.Other criteria: Studies must have been reported between 1978 and 2016. The search was not restricted by geography, language, publication status, or any other study characteristic.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts of records identified in the systematic search. Records that were clearly ineligible or irrelevant were excluded at the title/abstract phase; all other records were retrieved in full-text and screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies in eligibility assessments were discussed and resolved via consensus. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were coded by two independent reviewers using a structured data extraction form; any disagreements in coding were resolved via discussion and consensus. If members of the review team had conducted any of the primary studies eligible for the review, external and independent data collectors extracted data from those studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized study designs (Sterne, Higgins, & Reeves, 2016).Inverse variance weighted random effects meta-analyses were planned to synthesize effect sizes across studies, as well as heterogeneity analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis. However, these synthesis methods were not used given that only one study met the inclusion criteria for the review. Instead, effect sizes (and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals) were reported for all eligible outcomes reported in the study.RESULTS: Only one study met criteria for inclusion in the review. This study used a QED to examine the effects of RHSs on high school students' academic and substance use outcomes. No eligible studies examining CRCs were identified in the search.The results from the one eligible RHS study indicated that after adjusting for pretest values, students in the RHS condition reported levels of grade point averages (= 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.56]), truancy (= 0.01, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.31]), and alcohol use (= 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53]) similar to participants in the comparison condition. However, students in the RHS condition reported improvements in absenteeism (= 0.56, 95% CI [0.25, 0.87]), abstinence from alcohol/drugs (OR = 4.36, 95% CI [1.19, 15.98]), marijuana use (= 0.51, 95% CI [0.20, 0.82]), and other drug use (= 0.45, 95% CI [0.14, 0.76]).Overall, there was a serious risk of bias in the one included study. The study had a serious risk of bias due to confounding, low risk of bias due to selection of participants into the study, moderate risk of bias due to classification of interventions, inconclusive risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions, inconclusive risk of bias due to missing data, moderate risk of bias in measurement of outcomes, and low risk of bias in selection of reported results.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of RHSs and CRCs for improving academic and substance use outcomes among students in recovery from SUDs. Only one identified study examined the effectiveness of RHSs. Although the study reported some beneficial effects, the results must be interpreted with caution given the study's potential risk of bias due to confounding and limited external validity. No identified studies examined the effectiveness of CRCs across the outcomes of interest in this review, so it is unclear what effects these programs may have on students' academic and behavioral outcomes.The paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of recovery schools, as documented in this review, thus suggest the need for caution in the widespread adoption of recovery schools for students in recovery from SUDs. Given the lack of empirical support for these recovery schools, additional rigorous evaluation studies are needed to replicate the findings from the one study included in the review. Furthermore, additional research examining the costs of recovery schools may be needed, to help school administrators determine the potential cost-benefits associated with recovery schools.

Prolonged school non-attendance in adolescence: a practical approach

Prolonged school non-attendance in adolescence poses a significant public health concern. Adverse outcomes for adolescents who have missed out on the social and academic benefits of high school include mental health disorders and economic, social and relationship difficulties that may persist into adulthood. Healthcare professionals are often consulted in cases of prolonged school non-attendance. Diagnosis and management of specific physical and mental health problems must be the health professional's initial priority, with the subsequent development of a management plan to assist with school reintegration. Using a specific framework, an understanding of the factors contributing to a young person's school non-attendance can be developed. Intervention leading to a successful return to school has the potential to lower the risk of associated long-term adverse health outcomes.

Personal factors associated with smoking among marginalized and disadvantaged youth in Japan. A strong relationship between smoking and convenience store use

Background

A national survey in Japan reported that the prevalence of smoking among high school students has sharply decreased in recent years. However, the survey only considered students who attended regular high schools (RHSs), and Japan offers part-time high schools (PHSs) that are often attended by academically and socioeconomically disadvantaged youth.

Purpose

Therefore, we examined the smoking prevalence and smoking-related factors among PHS students.

Method

A self-administered questionnaire-based survey was conducted at six PHSs. The subjects included 540 enrolled students aged 15 to 18 years. The questionnaire included items on smoking status, smokers in the family, frequency of convenience store use, lifestyle behaviors, and health awareness. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors that were significantly associated with smoking.

Results

A total of 45.6 % of students had smoking experience, and 29.3 % were smokers. For males and females, the smoking prevalence was about 3 and 7–12 times higher, respectively, than that reported in the national survey. The factors found to be significantly associated with smoking included having a smoker in the family, experience with drinking alcohol, and using convenience store daily (odds ratio [OR] = 12.5) or sometimes (OR = 3.63). There was a significant dose–response relationship between smoking and convenience store use.

Conclusion

The smoking prevalence among PHS students was remarkably higher than that among RHS students. These findings suggest that marginalized and disadvantaged youth should be targeted for tobacco control, and intervention is needed to protect youth from tobacco sales and advertising at convenience stores.

Comparison of health-risk behaviors among students attending alternative and traditional high schools in Minnesota

Previous research, over a decade old, suggests students attending alternative high schools (AHS) engage in high levels of health-risk behaviors. Data from the 2007 Minnesota Student Survey for students attending AHS (n = 2,847) and traditional high schools (THS; n = 87,468) were used for this cross-sectional analysis to compare prevalence estimates, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and free and reduced lunch, for 28 health-risk behaviors. Students attending AHS were significantly more likely than students attending THS to report engaging in all behaviors related to unintentional injury and violence, tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use, and sexual activity, and were significantly less likely to report participating in physical activity, including sports teams. Students attending AHS continue to engage in high levels of health-risk behaviors as compared to their peers in THS. Updated national prevalence data were needed, as well as studies examining the role of protective factors in the lives of students attending AHS.

Health behaviors and mental health of students attending alternative high schools: a review of the research literature

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to describe current knowledge about health-risk behaviors and mental health among alternative high school students.

CONCLUSIONS

Substance use, diet and/or physical activity, sexual-risk behaviors, mental health, and violence were reviewed. Students were described as marginalized youth facing significant social environmental challenges. Findings from 43 studies published from 1997-2010 suggested a high prevalence of health-risk behaviors among alternative high school students. Very few studies were conducted by nurse researchers. Suggestions for future research include addressing social environmental factors, resiliency, and emotional/mental health outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Alternative high schools offer a venue to conduct research and implement nursing interventions with high-risk, yet resilient, youth.

Substance use and dietary practices among students attending alternative high schools: results from a pilot study

Background

Substance use and poor dietary practices are prevalent among adolescents. The purpose of this study was to examine frequency of substance use and associations between cigarette, alcohol and marijuana use and selected dietary practices, such as sugar-sweetened beverages, high-fat foods, fruits and vegetables, and frequency of fast food restaurant use among alternative high school students. Associations between multi-substance use and the same dietary practices were also examined.

Methods

A convenience sample of adolescents (n = 145; 61% minority, 52% male) attending six alternative high schools in the St Paul/Minneapolis metropolitan area completed baseline surveys. Students were participants in the Team COOL (Controlling Overweight and Obesity for Life) pilot study, a group randomized obesity prevention pilot trial. Mixed model multivariate analyses procedures were used to assess associations of interest.

Results

Daily cigarette smoking was reported by 36% of students. Cigarette smoking was positively associated with consumption of regular soda (p = 0.019), high-fat foods (p = 0.037), and fast food restaurant use (p = 0.002). Alcohol (p = 0.005) and marijuana use (p = 0.035) were positively associated with high-fat food intake. With increasing numbers of substances, a positive trend was observed in high-fat food intake (p = 0.0003). There were no significant associations between substance use and fruit and vegetable intake.

Conclusions

Alternative high school students who use individual substances as well as multiple substances may be at high risk of unhealthful dietary practices. Comprehensive health interventions in alternative high schools have the potential of reducing health-compromising behaviors that are prevalent among this group of students. This study adds to the limited research examining substance use and diet among at-risk youth.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01315743

Modifiable determinants of youth violence in Australia and the United States: A longitudinal study

Youth violence is a global problem. The major research into youth violence has been conducted in the United States (U.S.) and there has been little research to investigate whether the prevalence or predictors are similar in comparable Western countries like Australia. In the current paper, analyses are conducted using two waves of data collected as part of a cross-national longitudinal study of adolescent development in approximately 4000 students aged 12 to 16 years in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, U.S.. Students completed a self-report survey of problem behaviours including violent behaviour, as well as risk and protective factors across five domains (individual, family, peer, school, community).Compared to Washington State, rates of attacking or beating another over the past 12-months were lower in Victoria for females in the first survey and higher for Victorian males in the follow-up survey. Preliminary analyses did not show state-specific predictors of violent behaviour. Therefore, the final multivariate model included the combined Washington State and Victorian samples. In the multivariate model, protective factors were being female and student emotion control. Risk factors were prior violent behaviour, family conflict, association with violent peers, community disorganisation, community norms favourable to drug use, school suspensions, and arrests. A major implication of these findings is that the range of factors that influence violent behaviour in North America may also apply in Australia. Hence, the application of U.S. early intervention and prevention programs may be warranted, with some tailoring to the Australian context.

Emotional resilience: risk and protective factors for depression among alternative education students in New Zealand

A total of 268 alternative education students from New Zealand were surveyed to examine risk and protective factors for depression within the social environment. Twenty-eight (35.4%) of the girls and 31 (21.1%) of the boys had cut-off scores that indicated a high likelihood of significant psychopathology from depression. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that family and peer connections were protective against depression. High levels of poverty, witnessing violence at home, and experiencing bullying at school were significant risk factors for depression.