Adolescents develop behavioural patterns and make lifestyle decisions that significantly affect their present and future well- being throughout this crucial stage of life transitioning from infancy to adulthood [1]. Adolescence is a metamorphic stage that occurs between infancy and maturity, and it is undoubtedly one of the most exciting and complicated periods in the human lifetime [2]. Adolescents are undoubtedly at a vulnerable developmental stage as they navigate the arduous journey from childhood to adulthood. It is a well-established fact that there is a sharp increase in the prevalence of risky behaviours during this phase of life. While a significant number of adolescent’s exhibit resilience in the face of these challenges and demands, many still engage in risky conduct, and for an unfortunate minority, this risk-taking can have grave consequences. One such behaviour frequently initiated during adolescence is experimentation with substance abuse.

Adolescents' substance abuse often commences with alcohol and cigarettes, referred to as gateway substances. They are described as gateway substances because they are typically the initial substances used before experimentation with other illicit drugs. Although there has been an upward trend in the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes in Nigeria, the intake of illicit substances like cannabis and cocaine remains less prevalent. Whereas some substances like cigarettes primarily cause long-term damage, the adverse health consequences of alcohol and illicit substances (cannabis, cocaine) can manifest during adolescence itself. National surveys carried out in a number of different countries have shown an increase in the misuse of substances by children and adolescents, with alcohol being the most often abused drug [3].

Another drug that has been consistently abused by young people is tobacco usage. While the percentage of people who smoke seems to be declining (4% of 12 to 15-year-olds and 11% of 16 to 17- year-olds report being devoted smokers; ASSAD, 2005), smoking is still a highly misused substance. Notably, young people who use alcohol and tobacco have a twofold higher likelihood of using illegal substances (SAMHSA, 2007; AIHW, 2007b). Additionally, according to an earlier survey, 10% of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 were binge drinking or consuming alcohol in dangerously high amounts (ANCD, 2008). Even if the study is a little out of date, it shows that the problem has been a long-standing worry rather than something that only happened suddenly.

The severe nature of this problem is further shown by current research and publications from reliable sources. According to projections from the World Health Organisation [4], alcohol consumption accounts for around 5% of all fatalities globally among people aged 15 to 49, with young adults and adolescents being especially susceptible. In a similar vein, the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime notes that cannabis use among teenagers worldwide continues to be the most common drug, with alarming rates in many nations. These recent stats imply that it highlights the ongoing nature of this problem, underscoring the urgent need for concerted efforts to address and mitigate substance abuse among adolescents.

Epidemiological studies in Nigeria have revealed a disturbing prevalence of substance abuse among adolescents, marking it as a popular health-related issue in this population [5]. A significant portion of these young individuals initiate substance use with alcohol and cigarettes, subsequently progressing to more hazardous substances such as cannabis and cocaine [6]. Furthermore, school- based surveys in Nigeria have documented an alarming upward trend in the prevalence of substance use and a decreasing age of onset [7]. Research has also highlighted an increase in consumption, early initiation, growing female involvement, and a concerning shift toward polysubstance use among Nigerian adolescents [8]. Substance abuse among young people is undoubtedly one of the greatest challenges of our time, with media reports frequently depicting substance-related tragedies, such as school shootings, gang violence, and overdose-related deaths [9]. Baiden et al. [10] indicated that many experts and stakeholders perceive this issue as a veritable epidemic, indicating a need for comprehensive interventions and preventive measures.

Due to their particular traits resulting from their developmental processes, teenagers constitute a large population category in terms of demographic factors. They confront particular difficulties, some of which, if poorly handled, might jeopardize their growth and well-being. One of the most significant pledges a nation can make for future social, political, and economic advancement is to attend to the health and development requirements of its youth, since they are the nation's future [1]. According to research on the fast situation assessment of substance misuse in Nigeria, prescription medications like amphetamines and barbiturates, which are often used by adults, are also showing up among the youth population in Lagos. While the prevalence of extremely addictive hard drugs like heroin and cocaine seems high in Nigeria, the fact that so many young people use several substances is concerning. Documents from different areas of Nigeria also show the habit of sniffing volatile organic solvents, such as glue and petrol, as well as the misuse of other unusual chemicals that are not yet under international supervision, including pawpaw leaves, zakami, haukatayaro, and so forth [1].

Drug misuse seems to have grown overall, as seen by the 20% of young people in Nigeria (ages 12 to 24) who have mental health or drug use issues [8]. Thus, it seems to make sense to presume that a sizable fraction of these adolescents will be impacted by many illnesses; this is consistent with Wade's theory that drug misuse creates an environment conducive to the development of other diseases. More than 60% of non-fatal illness burden and 50% of overall disease burden (disability-adjusted life years; AIHW, 2007a) are attributed to mental and drug use disorders. Substance abuse is a multi-faceted phenomenon, stemming from an interplay of biological predispositions, individual developmental factors, and social contextual influences [10]. Specific social correlates implicated in adolescent substance abuse include parent-child conflict, exposure to physical or sexual abuse, family disruption, and academic underachievement. Ogundipe et al. [6] implies that substance abuse often precipitates affiliation with deviant peer networks, which can further aggravate substance use and introduce adolescents to additional illicit substances. Researchers such as the ones stated in this paragraph have extensively investigated the multitude of factors contributing to adolescent substance abuse. However, to achieve a comprehensive understanding of substance abuse and other emerging forms of psychological variables, novel and more contextually relevant research approaches are warranted. In a bid to fill this gap, this study examined school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy as determinants of substance abuse among adolescents while recommending a more practical approach to helping them to live a good lifestyle.

School Adjustment and Substance Abuse

To set the context, adjustment in this article implies behavioural adaptations to a certain set of circumstances or specific environments; this definition, when directly applied to the school settings, is behavioural adaptation of individuals to the school environment. School adjustment, therefore, is the situation where adolescents adjust to the school and its physical and atmospheric environment. The school environment serves as a viable socialization domain for adolescents. The way that students adapt to school and their experiences there foretell both favourable and unfavourable effects on their growth. These effects go beyond behaviour particular to schools (attendance, grades, etc.); they also affect prosocial and antisocial development more broadly, including early drug use. In the results revealed by Craig et al. [11], higher levels of school adjustment are associated with lower levels of substance use, specifically alcohol use. This assertion had earlier been substantiated by Henry et al. [12]. Although a student's level of academic adjustment may not be the sole factor influencing their drug addiction. However, the degree to which their peers exhibit successful school transition may also have an impact. Letina et al. [13] have highlighted how school bonding might explain variations in drug use across schools via two different mechanisms: compositional effects and contextual effects.

A compositional effect summarily describes a situation where schools with more well-adjusted students potentially have fewer cases of drug use. On the other hand, the contextual impact happens when a student's drug usage is influenced by the whole school environment, in this instance, school adjustment. In the event of a contextual impact, for example, a student attending a school where kids are generally more acclimated to the school would exhibit lower levels of drug misuse than the student attending a school where students are generally less well suited to the environment. According to Osgood & Anderson, emerging characteristics of the target social situations or groups have a significant influence on contextual effects; therefore, it may be difficult to account for them on an individual level. That is, the school environment is more influential in a contextual effect. Conversely, compositional effects may arise as an aggregation of individual effects.

Although several studies have explored the possible connections and intersections between school adjustment and substance use [14-16], the need to examine the relationship in varied contexts and populations lingers. Given the resounding association between school adjustment and substance use, it is pertinent to test their relationship among the sample of this study. This study, therefore, considers this relationship with other predictors.

Peer Influence and Substance Abuse

After the family, an important microsystem that impacts the adolescent's development is the peer group. Peer relationships and peer group influences take on heightened importance during adolescence. Peer groups provide teenagers a feeling of belonging, social support, and chances to practice their interpersonal skills [17]. This position arises because the peer group is often the child's initial introduction to other groups since they have comparable characteristics (e.g., age, class, ideas, emotions, responses, problems, and problem-solving approaches). Teenagers spend more time with their peers than those of other ages, according to Kawabata [18]. Peer groups are becoming more inclusive of peers of the other sex and are less neighbourhood-based and more independent. Teens' hobbies, social circle, and fashion sense often serve as identifiers for a subgroup that makes sense in the context of their school or neighbourhood. Membership within a peer group comes with the expectation of conforming to established norms and demonstrating unwavering loyalty and commitment to fellow group members [19]. The authors noted an implicit pressure on all individuals within the group to align their behaviours, attitudes, and values with those endorsed by the collective.

School adults both passively accept and actively encourage the organization of students into peer groupings. The passive mode involves the acceptance of friendship as it exists in the school. In the active mode, they reinforce some characteristics of the peer group by selecting certain students for certain kinds of tasks. Gogineni [17] proposed that adolescents may be quick to rely on peers once they become independent from their parents; hence, they become vulnerable to peer pressure. Teenagers participate in a variety of harmful conformity behaviours, such as using derogatory or obscene language, even though it's crucial to highlight the beneficial effects that peer connections may have. Negative peer group behaviours might include things like stealing, vandalizing, and making fun of parents and teachers. Nonetheless, a significant degree of peer conformity is positive and consists of the desire to participate in the peer world, including dressing formally and wanting to hang out with their clique members often. These conditions often lead to either prosocial or antisocial actions, such as drug misuse [20].

Parenting Processes and Substance Abuse

Ma et al. [21], aside from asserting the influence of media on the social development of children, imply that parental drug misuse can impair the development of social competence in children from such families. These children may exhibit deficiencies in interpersonal skills and struggle with navigating social situations effectively. This was especially true for children whose parents had recently abused substances as compared to parents who had recovered from drug addiction and for children whose parents had consumed alcohol but not their mothers. At 12 months, mothers who had heavy-drinking partners had more positive relationships with their babies; however, by 24 months, the excessive drinking of dads was associated with more negative maternal behaviour.

Adebimpe also affirmed in her study that the more religious parents or guardians are, the more they are likely to discourage their children or wards from abusing drugs. One of the values preached by religion is obedience, especially to parents. Therefore, in order to abide by this and not be recognized as deviants, most adolescents will want to obey, particularly when they have been warned by their parents, elders, or religious leaders about substance abuse. For the majority of children, the family serves as the main carer. It offers the child's immediate surroundings, which are favourable to their growth and development.

Trucco and Hartmann [22] imply that the early usage of drugs among adolescents can be attributed to social, familial, and environmental factors. Numerous research studies have looked at the family aspects (parenting styles and other concerns associated with the family) that may account for teenage antisocial behaviour [23-25]. According to Obadeji et al. [23], factors that raise the likelihood of teenage delinquency include a conflictual home environment, inadequate supervision, parental issues, severe punishment, a lack of warmth, and criminality within the family. Because there are many definitions of parenthood (such as whether to consider biological parents, social parents, or those living with the child), as well as the existence of multiple covariates and mediators, such as the child's personality and behaviour, the study of parental influences on children's drinking is complicated. Heavy drinking by parents causes a lot of issues in their relationships with one another and their kids. Research has shown a correlation between increased parental drug use and increased alcohol and tobacco use in their offspring [22,26]. It is, therefore, evident that adolescents who have parents with substance use disorders are much more likely to get caught up in a drug use cycle, associate with other drug users, and experience negative relationships with their families.

School Efficacy and Substance Abuse

Another possible connection examined in this study is school efficacy as a possible predictor of substance abuse. A fundamental cognitive process that underpins a variety of human behaviours is self-efficacy. The degree to which self-efficacy influences the link between individual thought, social experience, and human behaviour was first made clear by Cam et al. [27]. This is in direct sync with Bandura's theory that "people's thoughts, beliefs, and feelings influence their behaviour. "Reciprocal determinism" is the multi-faceted model that Bandura created to explain how human intellect, environmental factors, and behaviour are related. Bandura's tripartite model aimed to understand the interaction between a) individual cognition, affect, and biology; b) behaviour; and c) the environment, as opposed to the idea that an individual is built based solely on their biology or environment. Instead of being purely influenced by social or environmental factors, individual behaviour is believed to be heavily mediated by the person's knowledge, understanding, emotions, perceptions, and interpretations. In essence, school efficacy could be an interaction between the adolescent's self, the environment (school), and behaviours exhibited (substance abuse).

School efficacy beliefs, fondly referred to as the bridge between self-efficacy and teacher efficacy, are excellent predictors of adolescent behaviours. Strong senses of school efficacy in administrators have been linked to persistence in goal pursuit as well as more flexibility and willingness to modify techniques to fit specific situations. Such administrators perceive change to be a gradual process. Therefore, they do not stick with failed tactics; instead, they are unwavering in their pursuit of their objectives. When faced with challenges, students with high efficacy do not view their inability to resolve the issues right away as a sign of failure. Even in trying circumstances, they usually maintain their composure, confidence, and sense of humour by adjusting their expectations to fit the circumstances.

Conversely, those with low school efficacy have been seen to feel powerless over their surroundings and to be less inclined to recognize effective tactics or adjust ineffective ones. They obstinately stick to their initial plan of action even when faced with defeat. They tend to assign blame to others more readily when confronted. Such individuals with low efficacy struggle to recognize opportunities, build relationships, and adjust. By implication, the level and form of school efficacy may impact the environment afforded to students and teachers of the school. This may snowball into the perception of the school environment as an uncontrollable one that may be conducive to risky behaviours.

According to Lambert, "constructivist leadership," in relation to school efficacy, is defined as "a collaborative process that allows people within an educational environment to develop significance that leads toward a shared goal." The ability to fluidly transition between the positions of learner and leader is essential for effective leadership, as circumstances in intricate educational systems frequently change [28]. Appropriate leadership and high levels of school efficacy are important to shaping the school environment. Against this backdrop, we consider school efficacy as a factor that may be related to adolescents' risky behaviour, specifically substance abuse.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of a study is the blueprint underpinning the construct. The ecological systems theory anchors this study, as the school, peer influence, and parenting processes can be said to be subsumed under the systems proposed by the theory. Bronfenbrenner made significant theoretical contributions that are collectively referred to as ecological systems theory. According to the system theory, students who are enrolled in the school are viewed as key players in the educational system, where they are constantly and internally influenced by the different facets of the school's climate, such as the knowledge, values, and curricula, and externally by the interactions and communication that take place in their own families and the kinds of communities they are exposed to and relate to. In particular, open, encouraging, and constructive communication and interaction are critical to the school system [29].

The foundation of Brofenbrenner's four proposed systems are roles, norms, and rules. The earliest kind of system is the microsystem. The nearest setting in which a person is found or the face-to-face interactions between children and others are characterized as the microsystem, which is the innermost system. This system includes the nursery and the home (parents, instructors, and classmates). Children actively engage in a new environment when two or more microsystems interact, such as the family-school relationship, in the mesosystem, or second system. The third is the exosystem.

Children are not directly impacted by this system, but the microsystem could be. It has a result that is not direct. Nonetheless, a child's development may still be positively or negatively impacted by elements such as the parent's place of work, the child's surroundings, and financial difficulties. The outermost system is called the macrosystem. Though it does not directly touch children, the macrosystem, like the exosystem, has an effect on all systems, including the political, social, and economic ones. The macrosystem affects how other systems, such as the family, schools, and neighbourhood, operate [30]. These four systems serve as the foundation for the theory, which also considers how they affect human growth and education.

Theorists said that settings have the ability to influence children's development in a favourable or bad way. The idea states that the system affects many aspects of a person's or child's development, such as behaviour, capacity for leadership, physical maturity, character characteristics, growth, and health. At the end of the ecological system development phase, Bronfenbrenner introduced time (the chronosystem), which focuses on socio-history or events connected to time [31]. According to Bronfenbrenner [32] proximal processes (such as caregiver-child and peer-peer connections) function to create and maintain growth within the immediate surroundings of the microsystem. The individual's direct environment, such as family or school, determines the pattern of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relationships that make up the microsystem [32]. Early adolescent negative peer interactions may have microsystem-level antecedents in the form of parenting, peer influence, and school relationships. In summary, the ecological systems theory holds that time, social contact, and the environment are crucial to human growth. Hence, it has implications for this study.

Research Questions

The purpose of this study borders on the examination of the effect of school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy on substance abuse among in-school adolescents. Specifically, to guide this study, these research questions were set:

1. What pattern of relationship exists between school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, school efficacy, and substance abuse among in-school adolescents?
2. What is the joint contribution of school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy on substance abuse among in-school adolescents?
3. What is the relative effect of school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy on substance abuse among in-school adolescents?

A descriptive survey using a correlational design type was used in this investigation. According to Ayanwale et al. [33], the methodology enables the researcher to quantify relationships, collect data, synthesize, and evaluate data to provide clarity. Teenagers in Ibadan North Local Government's schools are among the study's target demographic. Three hundred respondents made up the study's sample. To choose the respondents, the researchers used a multistage sampling process. In the first phase, the secondary school site in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria, was selected by the researcher using a purposive sample approach. In the second phase, 10 of the 56 schools in the local government area were chosen at random by the researcher using a straightforward technique. In the third phase, thirty students were chosen from each of the ten secondary schools in the Ibadan North Local Government Area of Oyo State using a stratified selection approach. The researchers followed all ethical guidelines and got each participant's consent after receiving the go-ahead from the sampling schools. Additionally, the respondents were given assurances about the confidentiality of the data gathered, which prevented factual errors. The data for this study was gathered by the researchers together with six research assistants.

Participants

Students from senior secondary schools, both male and female, make up the sample. A total of 134 (44.7%) of the in-school adolescents are male, and a total of 166 (5.3%) of the in-school adolescents are female. Also, a total of 169 (56.3%) of the in- school adolescents are between the age range of 10-13 years old, and a total of 131 (43.7%) of the in-school adolescents are between the age range of 14 years and above.

Instruments

A structured questionnaire was used for this study. The participants' demographic information was collected in Section A; responses about other variables were gathered in Section B of the questionnaire. Experts in educational psychology and assessment were given access to the tool for validation. A pilot study was conducted to establish the psychometric properties of the instrument after experts had done a face validity. The pilot study involved the administration of the instruments on participants outside the sample area. Reliability was assessed, and the contributions were combined. After determining the reliability using the split-half approach, the Spearman-Brown prediction formula was utilized for analysis. All scales were found to be internally consistent (School Adjustment Scale α = 0.78; Parenting Processes Questionnaire α = 0.86; School Efficacy Scale α = 0.79; Peer Influence Scale α = 0.77; and Substance Abuse Scale α = 0.82) among the population of this study.

Data Analysis

Data collected regarding the questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency count and percentage) for demographic data. Pearson correlation and multiple regression statistical tools were used to answer the research questions at a .05 significance level.

The result of the research carried out on predisposing factors of substance abuse among in-school adolescents. Three research questions were formulated and tested for this study.

RQ1: What pattern of relationship exists between school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, school efficacy, and substance abuse among in-school adolescents?

Table 1: Summary of Correlation Matrix Showing the Relationship between the Study Variables.

Table 1 above reveals the correlation matrix on the relationship that exists among the predictors (school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy) and outcome variable (substance abuse) among in-school adolescents in Ibadan; school adjustment (r = .37, p < .001), peer influence (r = .72, p < .001), and parenting processes (r = .28, p < .001) all had a significant positive relationship with substance abuse. In contrast, school efficacy (r = -.42, p < .001) had a negative significant relationship with substance abuse. This implies that school adjustment, peer influence, and parenting processes positively correlated with substance abuse among in-school adolescents in Ibadan, while school efficacy negatively correlated with substance abuse among in-school adolescents in Ibadan. All the variables play a significant role in substance abuse among in-school adolescents in Ibadan.

RQ2: What is the joint contribution of the predictors (school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy) to the outcome variable (substance abuse) among in- school adolescents in Ibadan?

Table 2: Multiple Regression Analysis on Substance Abuse.

Table 2 showed there was a joint contribution of the predictors (school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy) to the outcome variable (substance abuse) of in-school adolescents in Ibadan. Multiple linear regression was used to test if the predictors relate to substance use among participants. Overall, the regression model was statistically significant, F (4, 293) = 77.61, p < .001). R_adj² for the model was .61. Therefore, 61% of variances of substance abuse were explained by the predictors brought together. This implies that there is a joint contribution of the predictors (school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy) to the outcome variable (substance abuse) of in-school adolescents in Ibadan.

RQ3: What is the relative effect of each of the predictors (school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy) on the outcome variable (substance abuse) among in- school adolescents in Ibadan?

Table 3: Relative Effect of Each of the Predictors on Substance Abuse.

Table 3 revealed the relative effect of each of the predictors (school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, school efficacy, emotional maturity, and financial literacy) on substance abuse among in-school adolescents in Ibadan; school adjustment (β = .19, t = 5.02, p < .001), peer influence (β = .57 , t = 13.67, p < .001), parenting processes (β = .15, t = 3.94, p < .001), and school efficacy (β = .10, t = 2.31, p = 0.022) had significant relative effects on substance abuse. That is, factors such as school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy predict and determine substance abuse of in-school adolescents in Ibadan. In terms of the magnitude of contribution, peer influence made the most significant contribution to substance abuse among in-school adolescents in Ibadan, followed by school adjustment, parental processes, and school efficacy, respectively.

The study explored the predisposing factors (school adjustment, peer influence, parental process, and school efficacy) of substance abuse among in-school adolescents. The result of research question one shows that school adjustment, peer influence, and parental process have a significant positive relationship to substance abuse, while school efficacy reveals a negative relationship. This is in line with a study by Carbonneau, Vitaro, and Tremblay [34], who found that factors associated with poor school adjustments, like academic struggles, social difficulties, and low engagement in school activities, contribute to the use of substances and substance abuse in general among in-school adolescents. Similarly, different studies found that students' grades also contribute to substance abuse among adolescents such that students with lower grades due to school adjustment problems are more likely to engage in substance abuse than those with higher grades [35,36]. On the other hand, substance abuse has a detrimental effect on school adjustment, leading to academic failure and other risky behaviour that can lead to disciplinary issues in the school.

On the influence of peer pressure on substance abuse of in-school adolescents, the extent to which adolescents are influenced by their peers cannot be overemphasized, and it has been a focus for developmental psychologists in the past decades. A meta-analysis by Watts [37] did not only find a positive significant relationship between peer pressure and substance abuse of in-school adolescents but also found that adolescents modified their substance usage based on their peers' perceived and actual use. This is also supported by different recent studies that corroborated the findings of this study [35-41]. In addition, as found in this study, parental processes have also been identified to influence in-school adolescent substance abuse in different studies. A longitudinal study by Rodríguez-Ruiz et al. [42] showed that low positive parenting and parental supervision, as well as aversive parenting, correlated with substance use and also predicted substance use at different stages of adolescence when the child is 11 years old. However, parental involvement and increasing their knowledge of beneficial parental practices are found to be effective methods in mitigating substance abuse among in-school adolescents [42,43]. Although this study found a negative significant relationship between school efficacy and substance abuse, the study by Lee and Henry [44] identified that there is a correlation between school efficacy and substance abuse in adolescents, such as alcohol and cannabis use. School efficacy was also found to influence substance abuse like marijuana among Latino students, and there is a joint contribution of school connectedness and parental process across all substances, as found in this study [45,46]. A study by Kayode [47] also found that negative parenting and peer pressure had a significant influence on the substance use of adolescents and young adults; however, the study suggested that peer pressure may have a greater influence than parenting processes at a certain age.

Substance abuse among adolescents is a complex issue influenced by multiple factors in their environment. This study found that school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, and school efficacy were all significantly related to substance abuse tendencies among in-school adolescents. Peer influence emerged as the strongest predictor, followed by school adjustment, parenting processes, and school efficacy, respectively. These findings underscore the need for a multifaceted approach involving the school system, parents, and students themselves to address adolescent substance abuse. Strategies that promote positive school adjustment, monitor negative peer associations, enhance effective parenting skills, and bolster self-efficacy beliefs within the school community could play a vital role in preventing and mitigating substance abuse issues among adolescents.

Based on the findings of this study, certain recommendations were made. Efforts should be made to implement school-based programs that foster a positive school climate, promote student engagement, and provide counseling/support services to improve school adjustment among students. Early intervention for students showing signs of school disengagement is likewise crucial. Peer education and mentorship initiatives where students can learn refusal skills and resilience against negative peer influences regarding substance abuse should be developed. Positive peer group associations should also be encouraged. Conscious efforts should be made to offer parenting skills training workshops that equip parents/guardians with strategies to enhance parent-child relationships, communication, monitoring, and substance abuse prevention approaches within the home environment.

Self-efficacy beliefs should be strengthened among school staff by providing professional development on leadership, problem- solving, and creating an enabling school culture that discourages risky behaviours like substance abuse. Stakeholders should look into developing a multi-stakeholder collaborative approach involving schools, families, community organizations, and policymakers to implement comprehensive substance abuse prevention and intervention programs tailored to the specific needs of the local adolescent population.

Limitations of the Study

The study utilized a sample of 300 respondents selected from 10 secondary schools in the Ibadan North Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria. While this provides insights from the specific local context, the findings may have limited generalizability to adolescent populations in other geographic regions or contexts due to potential sociocultural and environmental differences.

Since the study was conducted using a sample from a relatively confined geographic area, the ability to generalize the conclusions to a broader adolescent population across Nigeria or other countries may be restricted. Different regions could have varying cultural norms, parenting styles, school systems, and peer dynamics that influence substance abuse tendencies differently than observed in this local sample. Hence, generalizations and interpretations should be made with caution. In addition, this study employed cross- sectional, survey, and correlational methods; therefore, causation is not intended and should not be inferred.

Suggestions for Further Studies

Researchers could explore the influence of cultural norms and mental health factors on the relationships between school adjustment, peer influence, parenting processes, school efficacy, and substance abuse among adolescents. Also, to enhance generalizability, future studies could aim to collect data from a more diverse and nationally representative sample spanning multiple regions, cultures, and contexts within Nigeria or across different countries. This would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how the examined factors relate to adolescent substance abuse across diverse populations and settings.

Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The University Research Ethics Committee at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, provided the ethical approval for the conduct of the current study with No. (REC/CHDS/07/02/204) on the 7th of February, 2023.

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the participant(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement: The corresponding author can be contacted for additional information. The article and other resources include the original contributions to the study.

Conflicts of Interest: The study's author asserts that no financial or business connections might be seen as having a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the scholars whose works they used as a resource and the students who responded to their instruments.

Ethics Statement

All procedures involving human subjects in this study adhered to the National Research Committee's ethical guidelines. To participate in this study, each participant provided written, informed permission.

1. Falaye AO. Adolescent health: A valued national asset. Being a keynote paper presented at the 15th annual workshop of the public health nursing department, University of College hospital, Ibadan.
2. Adewuyi HO. Mode deactivation, coherence therapies, and self- acceptance among in-school adolescents with negative body image in Osun State, Nigeria. 2021.
3. World Health Organization. Global status report on alcohol and health 2021.
4. Florence AO, Beatrice O, Okpala PU, Oghale Prevalence of drug abuse amongst university students in Benin City, Nigeria. Public Health Research. 2016; 6: 31-37.
5. Ogundipe O, Amoo EO, Adeloye D, Olawole-Isaac Substance use among adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. S Afr J Child Health. 2018; 12: S79-S84.
6. Olanrewaju JA, Hamzat EO, Enya JI, Udekwu MO, Osuoya Q, Bamidele R, et al. An assessment of drug and substance abuse prevalence: a cross-sectional study among undergraduates in selected southwestern universities in Nigeria. J Int Med Res. 2022; 50: 1-11.
7. Onaolapo OJ, Olofinnade AT, Ojo FO, Adeleye O, Falade J, Onaolapo AY. Substance use and substance use disorders in Africa: An epidemiological approach to the review of existing World J Psychiatry. 2022; 12: 1268-1286.
8. Blanchflower DG, Bryson A. The Consequences of Abuse, Neglect, and Cyber-bullying on the Wellbeing of the National Bureau of Economic Research. 2024.
9. Baiden P, Jahan N, Mets VE, Adeku Y. An examination of the association between risky sexual behaviors and suicidal behaviors among adolescents: Findings from the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Curr Psychol. 2021; 42: 10375-10386.
10. Craig SG, Ames ME, Bondi BC. Pepler DJ. Canadian adolescents' mental health and substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic: Associations with COVID-19 stressors. Can J Behav Sci. 2023; 55: 46-55.
11. Henry KL, Stanley LR, Edwards RW, Harkabus LC, Chapin LA. Individual and contextual effects of school adjustment on adolescent alcohol use. Prev Sci. 2009; 10: 236-247.
12. Letina S, Long E, McCrorie P, Mitchell K, Zucca C, Riddell J, et al. Cross-sectional social network study of adolescent peer group variation in substance use and mental wellbeing: The importance of the meso level. Social Networks. 2024; 78: 119-137.
13. Trucco EM. A review of psychosocial factors linked to adolescent substance use. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2020; 196: 172969.
14. Heradstveit O, Hysing M, Boe T, Nilsen SA, Sivertsen B, Bretteville- Jensen AL, et al. Prospective associations between adolescent risky substance use and school dropout and the role of externalising and internalising problems. Nordic studies on alcohol and drugs. 2024; 41: 24-38.
15. Njigwum AC, Echebe Psycho-social determinants of adolescents substance abuse among secondary school students in rivers state. Journal of Education in Developing Areas. 2024; 31: 289-301.
16. Gogineni RR, Akhtar S, Fallon Adolescent peers. Besides Family: Extending the Orbit of Psychic Development. 2023; 113.
17. Kawabata Y, Kinoshita M, Onishi, A. A longitudinal study of forms of peer victimization and internalizing problems in adolescence. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol. 2024; 52: 1-14.
18. Field NH, Choukas?Bradley S, Giletta M, Telzer EH, Cohen GL, Prinstein MJ. Why adolescents conform to high?status peers: Associations among conformity, identity alignment, and self? Child Dev. 2024; 95: 879-894.
19. Van Hoorn J, Van Dijk E, Meuwese R, Rieffe C, Crone EA. Peer influence on prosocial behavior in J Res Adolesc. 2016; 26: 90-100.
20. Ma S, Li J, Chen Does screen media hurt young children's social development? Longitudinal associations between parental engagement, children's screen time, and their social competence. Early Educ Dev. 2024; 35: 10-25.
21. Trucco EM, Hartmann Understanding the etiology of adolescent substance use through developmental perspectives. Child Dev Perspect. 2021; 15: 257-264.
22. Obadeji A, Kumolalo BF, Oluwole LO, Ajiboye AS, Dada MU, Ebeyi RC. Substance use among adolescent high school students in Nigeria and its relationship with psychosocial factors. J Res Health 2020; 20: e00480.
23. Nawi AM, Ismail R, Ibrahim F, Hassan MR, Manaf MRA, Amit N, et Risk and protective factors of drug abuse among adolescents: a systematic review. BMC public health. 2021; 21: 1-15.
24. Oyelade OO, Ojuolape MO, Naseem AR, Fehintola VA. Impact of gambling on the mental and social wellbeing of youths in Ibadan, Afr J Humanities and Contemporary Edu Res. 2023; 13: 01- 11.
25. Oliveira LMFTD, Santos ARMD, Farah BQ, Ritti-Dias RM, Freitas CMSMD, Diniz PRB. Influence of parental smoking on the use of alcohol and illicit drugs among adolescents. EINSEinstein (Sao Paulo). 2019; 17: eAO4377.
26. Cam Z, E?kisu M, Kardas F, Saatcioglu O, Gelibolu The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between problem solving and hope. Participatory Educational Research. 2020; 7: 47-58.
27. Moss LJ. School Efficacy and Educational Leadership: How Principals Help Schools Get Smarter. 1999.
28. Aslanargun E. Teachers' expectations and school administration: Keys of better communication in schools. Eurasian J Educ Res. 2015; 15: 17-34.
29. Kitchen JA, Hallett E, Perez RJ, Rivera GJ. Advancing the use of ecological system theory in college students research: The ecological system interview tool. Journal of College Students Development. 2019; 60: 381-400.
30. Schunk DH. Learning theory: An educational perspective. Pearson.
31. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological models of human development. The international encyclopedia of education. 1994; 3: 1643-1647.
32. Ayanwale MA, Adewuyi HO, Afolabi OW. Learning through radio and television during COVID-19: perspectives of K-12 EUREKA: Social and Humanities. 2023; 2: 61-72.
33. Carbonneau R, Vitaro F, Tremblay RE. School adjustment and substance use in early adolescent boys: Association with paternal alcoholism with and without dad in the J Early Adolesc. 2017; 38: 1008-1035.
34. Heradstveit O, Skogen JC, Hetland, J, Hysing M. Alcohol and illicit drug use are important factors for school-related problems among Front Psychol. 2017; 8.
35. Devcic S, Sekulic D, Ban D, Kutlesa Z, Rodek J, Sajber D. Evidencing protective and risk factors for harmful alcohol rrinking in adolescence: A prospective analysis of sport-participation and scholastic-achievement in older adolescents from Croatia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15: 986.
36. Watts LL, Hamzab EA, Bedewy DA, Moustafa AA. A meta-analysis study on peer influence and adolescent substance use. Curr Psychol. 2023; 43: 3866-3881.
37. Adewuyi HO, Raji NA, Jacob US, Olabode OM, Pillay J. Mental health among secondary school students: Predictive factor analysis. Univers J Public Health. 2024; 12: 28-36.
38. Adikini S. Peer pressure, substance abuse, and risky sexual behavior among students at Makerere University. 2023.
39. Giletta M, Choukas-Bradley S, Maes M, Linthicum KP, Card NA, Prinstein MJ. A meta-analysis of longitudinal peer influence effects in childhood and adolescence. Psychol Bull. 2021; 147: 719-747.
40. Allen JP, Loeb EL, Kansky J, Davis AA. Beyond susceptibility: Openness to peer influence is predicted by adaptive social relationships. Int J Behav Dev. 2020; 46.
41. Rodríguez-Ruiz J, Zych I, Ribeaud D, Steinhoff A, Eisner M, Quednow BB, et al. The influence of different dimensions of the parent–child relationship in childhood as longitudinal predictors of substance use in late adolescence. The mediating role of self- control. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2023; 22: 3073-3090.
42. Omoponle AH. Delinquency among senior secondary school adolescents: Psycho-personological factors: Psycho-personological factors. Int J Curriculum and Instruction. 15: 2145-2165.
43. Lee H, Henry KL. Adolescent substance use prevention: Long?term benefits of school engagement. J Sch Health. 2022; 92: 337-344.
44. Fagbule OF, Kanmodi KK, Samuel VO, Isola TO, Aliemeke EO, Ogbeide ME, et al. Prevalence and predictors of cigarette smoking and alcohol use among secondary school students in Nigeria. Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 2021; 19: 112-123.
45. Vaughan EL, Kratz L, d’Argent J. Academics and substance use among latino adolescents: Results from a national study. J Ethn Subst Abuse. 2021; 10: 147-161.
46. Kayode A. Peer pressure and parenting style as correlates of adolescent drug abuse behavior. 2021.
47. Ferrari AJ, Santomauro DF, Aali A, Abate YH, Abbafati C, Abbastabar H, et al. Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet. 2024; 403: 2133-2161.