Substance Abuse in Junior Secondary School Students in Hong Kong

  • Daniel T. L. ShekEmail author
  • Janet T. Y. Leung
Part of the Quality of Life in Asia book series (QLAS, volume 5)


Based on three waves of longitudinal data collected from 2,667 secondary school students over the junior secondary school years, the prevalence of substance abuse behaviors among Hong Kong adolescents and the sociodemographic, familial, and psychosocial correlates of adolescent substance abuse were examined in the study. Results showed that drug use in the areas of smoking, drinking, and organ solvent deserves our attention. Results also showed that socioeconomic status as well as family conflicts and communication predicted adolescent substance abuse. At the same time, positive youth development attributes were negatively associated with adolescent substance abuse. The contributions of family functioning and positive youth development to the reduction of adolescent substance abuse are discussed.


Adolescent substance abuse Economic disadvantage Family functioning Longitudinal study Positive youth development 



The preparation for this paper was financially supported by the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust. The authorship is equally shared between the first author and second author.


  1. Barrett, A. E., & Turner, R. J. (2006). Family structure and substance use problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Examining explanations for the relationship. Addiction, 101(1), 109–120.Google Scholar
  2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742.Google Scholar
  4. Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluation of positive youth development programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 98–124.Google Scholar
  5. Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2008). Understanding the processes through which economic hardship influences families and children. In D. R. Crane & T. B. Heaton (Eds.), Handbook of families and poverty (pp. 64–81). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Fleming, R., Leventhal, H., Glynn, K., & Ershler, J. (1989). The role of cigarettes in the initiation and progression of early substance use. Addictive Behaviors, 14, 261–272.Google Scholar
  7. Frojd, S., Kaltiala-Heino, R., & Rimpela, M. (2007). The association of parental monitoring and family structure with diverse maladjustment outcomes in middle adolescent boys and girls. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 61(4), 296–303.Google Scholar
  8. Griffin, K. W., Botvin, G. J., Scheier, L. M., Diaz, T., & Miller, N. L. (2000). Parenting practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth: Moderating effects of family structure and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14(2), 174–184.Google Scholar
  9. Hibell, B., Guttormsson, U., Ahlström, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., et al. (2009). The 2007 ESPAD report: Substance Use among students in 35 European Countries. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs.Google Scholar
  10. Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighbourhood. In L. Lynn & M. McGeary (Eds.), Inner city poverty in the United States (pp. 111–186). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  12. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2013). Monitoring the Future: National results on drug use 2012 overview – Key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Retrieved December 16, from
  13. Kandel, D. B., Yamaguchi, K., & Chen, K. (1992). Stages of progression in drug involvement from adolescence to adulthood: Further evidence for the gateway theory. Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs, 53, 447–457.Google Scholar
  14. Kaplan, H. B., Martin, S. S., & Robbins, C. (1982). Application of a general theory of deviant behavior: Self-derogation and adolescent drug use. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 23, 274–294.Google Scholar
  15. Lau, M., & Kan, M. Y. (2010). Prevalence and correlates of problem behaviors among adolescents in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 22(3), 354–364.Google Scholar
  16. Ledoux, S., Miller, P., Choquet, M., & Plant, M. (2002). Family structure, parent-child relationships, and alcohol and other drug use among teenagers in France and the United Kingdom. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 37(1), 52–60.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, T. R., & Goddard, H. W. (1989). Developing family relationship skills to prevent substance abuse among high-risk youth. Family Relations, 38(3), 301–305.Google Scholar
  18. Lindheim, R., & Syme, S. L. (1983). Environments, people and health. Annual Reviews of Public Health, 4, 335–359.Google Scholar
  19. Mak, K. K., Ho, S. Y., Thomas, G. N., Schooling, C. M., McGhee, S. M., & Lam, T. H. (2010). Family structure, parent-child conversation time and substance use among Chinese adolescents. Public Health, 10, 503–511.Google Scholar
  20. Masten, A. S., Monn, A. R., & Supkoff, L. M. (2011). Resilience in children and adolescents. In S. M. Southwick, B. T. Litz, D. Charney, & M. J. Friedman (Eds.), Resilience and mental health: Challenges across the lifespan (pp. 103–119). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. McCubbin, H. I., Needle, R. H., & Wilson, M. (1985). Adolescent health risk behaviors: Family stress and adolescent coping as critical factors. Family Relations, 34(1), 51–62.Google Scholar
  22. McLoyd, V. C., Kaplan, R., Purtell, K. M., Bagley, E., Hardaway, C. R., & Smalls, C. (2009). Poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steingberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (Contextual influences on adolescent development, Vol. 2, pp. 444–491). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Narcotics Division. (2010). The 2008/09 survey of drug use among students. Hong Kong: Narcotics Division, Security Bureau, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.Google Scholar
  24. Narcotics Division. (2012). Central registry of drug abuse sixty-first report: 2002–2011. Hong Kong: Narcotics Division, Security Bureau, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.Google Scholar
  25. Phillips, T. M., & Pittman, J. F. (2003). Identity processes in poor adolescents: Exploring the linkages between economic disadvantage and the primary task of adolescence. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 3(2), 115–129.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenberg, M., & Pearlin, L. (1978). Social class and self-esteem among children and adults. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 53–77.Google Scholar
  28. Roustit, C., Chaix, B., & Chauvin, P. (2007). Family breakup and adolescents’ psychosocial maladjustment: Public health implications of family disruptions. Pediatrics, 120(4), e984–991.Google Scholar
  29. Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Shek, D. T. L. (2002). Assessment of family functioning Chinese adolescents: The Chinese family assessment instrument. In N. N. Singh, T. Ollen-dick, & A. N. Singh (Eds.), International perspectives on child and adolescent mental health (pp. 297–316). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  31. Shek, D. T. L. (2005). A longitudinal study of perceived family functioning and adolescent adjustment in Chinese adolescents with economic disadvantage. Journal of Family Issues, 26(4), 518–543.Google Scholar
  32. Shek, D. T. L. (2007). Tackling adolescent substance abuse in Hong Kong: Where we should and should not go. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL: TSW Child Health & Human Development, 19(7), 2021–2030.Google Scholar
  33. Shek, D. T. L. (2010). Objective outcome evaluation of the Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong: Findings based on individual growth curve models. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL: TSW Child Health & Human Development, 10, 182–191.Google Scholar
  34. Shek, D. T. L., & Leung, J. T. Y. (2013). Adolescent developmental issues in Hong Kong: Phenomena and implications for youth service. In D. T. L. Shek & R. C. F. Sun (Eds.), Development and evaluation of Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic Social Programs (P.A.T.H.S.) (pp. 1–14). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Shek, D. T. L., & Liu, T. T. (2013). Life satisfaction in junior secondary school students in Hong Kong: A 3-year longitudinal study. Social Indicators Research. doi:  10.1007/s11205-013-0398-4.
  36. Shek, D. T. L., & Ma, C. M. S. (2010a). Dimensionality of the Chinese Positive Youth Development Scale: Confirmatory factor analyses. Social Indicators Research, 98, 41–59.Google Scholar
  37. Shek, D. T. L., & Ma, C. M. S. (2010b). The Chinese Family Assessment Instrument (C-FAI): Hierarchical confirmatory factor analyses and factorial invariance. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(1), 112–123.Google Scholar
  38. Shek, D. T. L., & Ma, C. M. S. (2011). Substance abuse in junior secondary school students in Hong Kong: Prevalence and psychosocial correlates. A longitudinal study. International Journal of Child Health and Human Development, 4(4), 433–442.Google Scholar
  39. Shek, D. T. L., Ma, H. K., & Sun, R. C. F. (2011). A brief overview of adolescent developmental problems in Hong Kong. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL, 11, 2243–2256.Google Scholar
  40. Shek, D. T. L., Siu, A. M. H., & Lee, T. Y. (2007). The Chinese Positive Youth Development Scale: A validation study. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 380–391.Google Scholar
  41. Shek, D. T. L., & Sun, R. C. F. (2010). Effectiveness of the Tier 1 Program of Project P.A.T.H.S.: Findings based on three years of program implementation. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL: TSW Child Health & Human Development, 10, 1509–1519.Google Scholar
  42. Shek, D. T. L., & Yu, L. (2011a). Descriptive profiles and correlates of substance use in Hong Kong adolescents: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Child Health and Human Development, 4(4), 443–460.Google Scholar
  43. Shek, D. T. L., & Yu, L. (2011b). Prevention of adolescent problem behavior: Longitudinal impact of the Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL: TSW Child Health & Human Development, 11, 546–567.Google Scholar
  44. Shek, D. T. L., & Yu, L. (2012). Longitudinal impact of the Project P.A.T.H.S. on adolescent risk behavior: What happened after five years. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL, 2012, Article ID 316029, 13 pp. doi:  10.1100/2012/316029.
  45. Sun, R. C. F., & Shek, D. T. L. (2012). Positive youth development, life satisfaction and problem behavior among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong: A replication. Social Indicators Research, 105(3), 541–559.Google Scholar
  46. The Hong Kong Council of Social Service. (2013). Social development index report 2012 [in Chinese]. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Council of Social Service. Retrieved December 16 at
  47. Torabi, M. R., Bailey, W. J., & Majd-Jabbari, M. (1993). Cigarette smoking as a predictor of alcohol and other drug use by children and adolescents: Evidence of the “gateway drug effect”. The Journal of School Health, 63, 302–306.Google Scholar
  48. Unger, J. B., Sun, P., & Johnson, C. A. (2007). Socioeconomic correlates of smoking among an ethnically diverse sample of 8th grade adolescents in Southern California. Preventive Medicine, 44, 323–327.Google Scholar
  49. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. (2012). World drug report 2012. New York: United Nations (online). Retrieved December 16, 2013, from
  50. Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. (2006). The effects of school-based social information processing interventions on aggressive behavior, Part I: Universal programs. Nashville, TN: Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology, Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Social SciencesThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHunghomHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Applied Social SciencesCity University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations