The Relationship between Religion, Substance Misuse, and Mental Health among Black Youth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very exotic paper using a rather large data set of respondents to evaluate personal and faith items on the outcome of sexual behavior when substance abuse is occurring. It is not clear from the onset of this study why exactly this is worth the attention: why is sex under the influence of drugs an interesting target variable? Why should this be seen as a reliable proxy for lifestyle measures? The authors must strengthen the case for their study.

The results themselves are not very surprising. The notion that poly drug abuse increases sex on drugs is rather intuitive and so is the idea that faith reduces sex on drugs. This is not in itself a problem but given the fact that there needs a better argument for why this study is necessary, it dampens relevance of the paper. The chapter from lines 66 – 81 does not do the trick.

Already in their abstract, the authors claim that “much more remains to be discovered concerning Black youths’ intersecting spiritual, race, gender, and sexual identities, especially as CRT is under attack.”. As stated above, without a stronger argument of why this study is necessary and relevant, such statements remain rather dubious since they only appear to reflect the authors’ own interests and proclivities. At the same time, the authors seem to be almost apologetic in their tone towards CRT. This is dangerous and uncommendable – especially for an academic paper – since this is marketed as a research paper (and not an opinion paper) and hence needs to be more nuanced and neutral. There are many critics of CRT and this paper should provide a clearer explanation why exactly the authors are sympathizing with CRT despite the strong criticism out there.

In the literature review, the chapter entitled “Black Youth and Spirituality” seems only to discuss spirituality (without the connection to black youth) – as such, the chapter is misnamed. On line 176-179, authors hold: “Therefore, within the current study context, we seek to examine how a sample of Black youth endorse accounts of their mental health experiences given the multiple intersections of their race, gender, SES, sexual behavior, and their political positionalities.” This comes out of nowhere and seems highly arbitrary. Why is this study interested in exactly this mix of variables? There should be a clearly outlined logic for why exactly these measures were used.

The first hypothesis is put in a strange way: a negative association with a reduced variable in fact would simply mean a positive association with the variable. Hence, the statement “sex while on drugs would be negatively associated with reduced mental health” would be more understandable if it says that sex while on drugs is positively associated with mental. However, this is probably not what the authors intended to say, which more likely is that sex on drugs correlates negatively with mental health.

At the beginning, it was said that sex on drugs would be the target variable of the regression model(s). However, in the methods section, it was stated that a composite mental health score is used as the dependent variable. This does not appear to add up. As for the independent variables, it was explained that religiosity was measured using three items whereas only one sample item was reported. It would be helpful if all items in the model are clearly described and not just sample ones. Before the methods section, it is claimed that “sex on drugs” is the target variable, not it suddenly becomes a variable measuring sex while on drugs and on alcohol (the alcohol part was missing before) – this is misleading.

Why was condom use treated as a covariate variable? This makes it seem like it was assumed to be a confounding variable, like gender or grade level.

I was expecting to see tables highlighting the results – but I cannot see any. This would be very helpful and indeed necessary for a good understanding of the research methodology and results. There are three tables referred to in the paper. Why are they missing? They should be included in the paper!

Why are multiple regression analyses preferred in this study? It may seem that a more suitable model would have been a hierarchical multilevel linear mixed-method model. This would allow the researchers to adjust the model for interindividual differences. Did they take this into account?

Some minor issues:

-          It’s probably “ethnic” and not “ethic peers” on line 52

-          The Pew Research Center is cited as “center”, treating it like a last name

-          “parent's” on line 65 should probably be “parents’ “

-          “Lastly, we conducted a multiple regression with the study outcome: Mental Health—all study predictors and covariates” needs to be rewritten

I am very hesitant to recommend this paper for approval (even after revision) since many things about it appear to be highly arbitrary, lack essential information and do not give the impression of being impartial. However, in the spirit of “in dubio pro reo”, I believe that the authors might succeed to bring it into a publishable form. For this, they need to strongly rewrite the paper, make a much stronger case for their assumptions and methodology, and provide more transparency on their approach.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

1. This is a very exotic paper using a rather large data set of respondents to evaluate personal and faith items on the outcome of sexual behavior when substance abuse is occurring. It is not clear from the onset of this study why exactly this is worth the attention: why is sex under the influence of drugs an interesting target variable? Why should this be seen as a reliable proxy for lifestyle measures? The authors must strengthen the case for their study.
   1. RESPONSE: The authors revised the current study section of the paper to note the importance of focusing on these contextual factors, especially religiosity among these factors to better establish the focus on this topic with this population.
2. The results themselves are not very surprising. The notion that poly drug abuse increases sex on drugs is rather intuitive and so is the idea that faith reduces sex on drugs. This is not in itself a problem but given the fact that there needs a better argument for why this study is necessary, it dampens relevance of the paper. The chapter from lines 66 – 81 does not do the trick.
   1. RESPONSE: The authors added a statement to the paragraph, i.e., lines 80-83 to better situate the motivation for this study.
3. Already in their abstract, the authors claim that “much more remains to be discovered concerning Black youths’ intersecting spiritual, race, gender, and sexual identities, especially as CRT is under attack.”. As stated above, without a stronger argument of why this study is necessary and relevant, such statements remain rather dubious since they only appear to reflect the authors’ own interests and proclivities. At the same time, the authors seem to be almost apologetic in their tone towards CRT. This is dangerous and uncommendable – especially for an academic paper – since this is marketed as a research paper (and not an opinion paper) and hence needs to be more nuanced and neutral. There are many critics of CRT and this paper should provide a clearer explanation why exactly the authors are sympathizing with CRT despite the strong criticism out there.
   1. RESPONSE: The authors edited the aforementioned statement as follows: “Given these findings, especially the power of believing in God and its effect on decreasing the likelihood of having sex while under the influence of drugs notes that religious activities remain strong among Black youth despite studies suggesting a decrease in these activities.” Also, the authors revised the tone in its use of CRT, so it is more unrepentant and noted the limited studies of Black life in terms of spirituality and theorizing of youth has been attributed to racism err the focus on CRT.
4. In the literature review, the chapter entitled “Black Youth and Spirituality” seems only to discuss spirituality (without the connection to black youth) – as such, the chapter is misnamed. On line 176-179, authors hold: “Therefore, within the current study context, we seek to examine how a sample of Black youth endorse accounts of their mental health experiences given the multiple intersections of their race, gender, SES, sexual behavior, and their political positionalities.” This comes out of nowhere and seems highly arbitrary. Why is this study interested in exactly this mix of variables? There should be a clearly outlined logic for why exactly these measures were used.
   1. RESPONSE: The authors appreciate this feedback and made several revisions to provide more clarity. First, we moved the previous content (edited) about spirituality to the discussion section of the paper to denote the need for studies on S/R. Second, we expanded the section on Black youth and spirituality to include the Black church to provide more content regarding its role and impact on Black youth given the mixed evidence about spirituality.
5. The first hypothesis is put in a strange way: a negative association with a reduced variable in fact would simply mean a positive association with the variable. Hence, the statement “sex while on drugs would be negatively associated with reduced mental health” would be more understandable if it says that sex while on drugs is positively associated with mental. However, this is probably not what the authors intended to say, which more likely is that sex on drugs correlates negatively with mental health.
   1. RESPONSE: The authors appreciate this comment and changed the first hypothesis to “sex while on drugs correlates negatively with mental health.”
6. At the beginning, it was said that sex on drugs would be the target variable of the regression model(s). However, in the methods section, it was stated that a composite mental health score is used as the dependent variable. This does not appear to add up. As for the independent variables, it was explained that religiosity was measured using three items whereas only one sample item was reported. It would be helpful if all items in the model are clearly described and not just sample ones. Before the methods section, it is claimed that “sex on drugs” is the target variable, not it suddenly becomes a variable measuring sex while on drugs and on alcohol (the alcohol part was missing before) – this is misleading.
   1. RESPONSE: The authors appreciate this comment and corrected the statement in the abstract noting that sex while on drugs is the outcome variable.
7. Why was condom use treated as a covariate variable? This makes it seem like it was assumed to be a confounding variable, like gender or grade level.
   1. RESPONSE: We included condom use as a covariate because we believe it is related to the dependent variable – mental health. In a previous study of Black girls (Waller et al., 2022), we conducted a moderation analysis and found that the interaction plot showed an enhancing effect such that as condom use increased, depression among Black girls increased. Based on this finding, we included condom use as covariate. We added this explanation and cited the published article.
8. I was expecting to see tables highlighting the results – but I cannot see any. This would be very helpful and indeed necessary for a good understanding of the research methodology and results. There are three tables referred to in the paper. Why are they missing? They should be included in the paper!
   1. RESPONSE: The tables have been included for review.
9. Why are multiple regression analyses preferred in this study? It may seem that a more suitable model would have been a hierarchical multilevel linear mixed-method model. This would allow the researchers to adjust the model for interindividual differences. Did they take this into account?
   1. RESPONSE: We chose to run a multiple regression given the scant literature in this area, so we opted to explore how the study variables were associated with the outcome variable – mental health to determine the significant correlations and the shared variance between these variables and reduce the statistical noise as a function of variable redundancy.
10. Some minor issues:
    1. It’s probably “ethnic” and not “ethic peers” on line 52
       1. RESPONSE: We changed “ethic” to “ethnic.”
    2. The Pew Research Center is cited as “center”, treating it like a last name
       1. RESPONSE: We corrected the in-text citations using (Pew Research Center, 2018), as well as corrected the reference and put it in alpha order.
    3. “parent's” on line 65 should probably be “parents’ “
       1. RESPONSE: We changed “parent’s” to “parents.’”
    4. “Lastly, we conducted a multiple regression with the study outcome: Mental Health—all study predictors and covariates” needs to be rewritten
       1. RESPONSE: We changed Lastly, we conducted a multiple regression with the study outcome: Mental Health—all study predictors and covariates” to “Lastly, we conducted a multiple regression, including all the study predictors and covariates on the study outcome: Mental Health.”
    5. I am very hesitant to recommend this paper for approval (even after revision) since many things about it appear to be highly arbitrary, lack essential information and do not give the impression of being impartial. However, in the spirit of “in dubio pro reo”, I believe that the authors might succeed to bring it into a publishable form. For this, they need to strongly rewrite the paper, make a much stronger case for their assumptions and methodology, and provide more transparency on their approach.
       1. RESPONSE: The authors appreciate your feedback and would appreciate any additional feedback you may have on the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest graphical presentations of results, because People like me who are not familiar with statistics need something to visualize dala.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. I suggest graphical presentations of results, because People like me who are not familiar with statistics need something to visualize dala.
   1. RESPONSE: The tables have been included for review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Religiosity is the practice of one’s religion and is conceptualized as the involvement 61
in institutions that allow for formal expression with the sacred (Dill, 2017). It includes a 62
fundamental belief in God and is measured by prayer, church attendance, and meditation 63
frequency

 

this is a very outdated sociological conceptualization of religiosity!

I dont think that measuring religious practice will do any good on further studies. treating religiosity as a mere practice takes back to the 70 and 60ties when it was used in sociology of religion. therefore I find the study redundant, however the topic is interesting

Author Response

1. Religiosity is the practice of one’s religion and is conceptualized as the involvement 61
   in institutions that allow for formal expression with the sacred (Dill, 2017). It includes a 62
   fundamental belief in God and is measured by prayer, church attendance, and meditation 63
   frequency this is a very outdated sociological conceptualization of religiosity!
   1. RESPONSE: We expanded the section on Black youth and spirituality to include the Black church to provide more content regarding its role and impact on Black youth given the mixed evidence about spirituality.
2. I dont think that measuring religious practice will do any good on further studies. treating religiosity as a mere practice takes back to the 70 and 60ties when it was used in sociology of religion. therefore I find the study redundant, however the topic is interesting
   1. RESPONSE: The authors appreciate your feedback and would appreciate any additional feedback you may have on the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of this paper have now improved the manuscript and I can recommend it for publication.

Author Response

January 23, 2023

 

Dr. Meredith O. Hope

Guest Editor

National Center for Institutional Diversity

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor 48109, MI, USA

[email protected]

 

RE: Manuscript ID: religions-1891705

 

Dear Dr. Hope:

 

The authors are pleased to resubmit our manuscript titled, “The relationship between religion, substance misuse, and mental health among Black youth” for the Religion and Health for Black Youth: A Global Focus special issue for your review. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings from this study investigating the correlates of mental health behavior as an exploratory step to develop effective services and to intervene with Black youth living in low-income communities with a population of Black youth in a national study.

 

This manuscript has not been published elsewhere nor has it been submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere. All authors have met the criteria for authorship through their substantial individual contributions of the conception and development of this manuscript. None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to report. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors.

 

The authors appreciate the editor’s feedback and addressed their comments as follows:

 

Editor’s Comments

 

This paper tackles an important subject but needs to address several

problems.

 

1. The abstract is far too long. Cut it down by two thirds and focus on the aims, results, etc. of this specific study in the abstract. I have never seen an abstract this long and it looks out of step with most published research at this journal and in the social sciences. It is a warning sign to any who may be interested in reading this paper. The abstract may discourage people from reading on.
   1. RESPONSE: The authors provided a longer abstract for the initial submission as requested for review. The authors cut the abstract down to 220 words, so it is in line with published articles’ abstracts for the journal on page 1.
2. The introduction is far too short. Double or triple it's size while stating the aims and significance of the study in the introduction. Placing the study aims after the lit review means they're lost. The literature review is extensive but misses major figures who have studied race, religion, and mental health. Christopher Ellison is among them. Their work has been mostly on African American adults, but that leads directly to this study and highlights a gap this investigation fills. Here is (some of) your significance argument.
   2. RESPONSE: Thank you for this feedback. The introduction is doubled in length and comprises three solid paragraphs and includes cited work by Christopher Ellison (2023) on pages 1 and 2.
3. Racism is highly prevalent in American society, as this paper clearly indicates. That said, the paper would read more compellingly if it focused more narrowly on the topic (African American young people's mental health) with more pointed attention paid to how this connects to larger patterns of racism. There is so much context provided in so much detail concerning the broader (and highly lamentable) state of American race relations that the key points of this particular study – its empirical contributions -- can get lost at times. CRT is totally appropriate, but a more pointed focus on this study's aims with the excellent critical edge that CRT provides would give this study more punch. Some of the article reads like the abstract, both of which seem unfocused at times.
   12. RESPONSE: The authors appreciate these comments and revised the article so that CRT tenets are highlighted and frame the study results in meaningful ways – Black youth’s mental health and limited access to services given racism, medical mistrust, etc. on page 5, and pages 7-12.
4. Why not present the results in tables? A reviewer has encouraged this approach and it has not been done.
   1. RESPONSE: The authors provided the tables for review again so they can be reviewed.

 

This is a good study and I wish the authors well on their revisions. I urge them to conform more closely to the standard social science format for published articles.

 

We thank the reviewers for their time and feedback regarding our paper submission.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

First Author

 

 

CC:      Kallie Chen

Assistant Editor, MDPI

Tianjin Religions, Special Issue

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf