Improving the Sensitivity of Needs Assessment for Substance Abuse Prevention Planning: The Measurement of Differential Severity of Consequences for Individual Substance Types
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2007
Improving the Sensitivity of Needs Assessment for Substance Abuse Prevention Planning: The Measurement of Differential Severity of Consequences for Individual Substance Types
There is an absence of systematic, comparative research examining the negative consequences that are experienced as a result of using specific substances. Further, techniques typically used for needs assessment (i.e., prevalence proportions) do not take into account the probability of experiencing a negative consequence as a result of using specific substances. An approximated severity index is proposed that: a) takes into account the probability of experiencing negative consequences as a result of using specific substances; and b) is comparable across substances. Data from the NSDUH and the ADSS are used to demonstrate these techniques. The findings suggest that substances typically considered priorities based on prevalence proportions are not the same substances that have a high probability of causing negative consequences. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ADSS. (1996). U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS), 1996–1999: [United States] [Computer file]. Conducted by Brandeis University. 3rd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 2004.
2.
BaborT. F.DolinskyZ. S.MeyerR. E.HesselbrockM.HofmannM., & TennenH. (1992). Types of alcoholics: Concurrent and predictive validity of some common classification schemes. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 1415–1431.
3.
BlackS., & CasswellS. (1992). User reports of problems associated with alcohol and marijuana. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 1275–1280.
4.
CMF. (2004). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Compressed Mortality File (CMF) compiled from CMF 1968–1988, Series 20, No. 2A 2000, CMF 1989–1998, Series 20, No. 2E 2003, and CMF 1999–2002, Series 20, No. 2H 2004 on CDC WONDER On-line Database.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
DawkinsM. P. (1997). Drug use and violent crime among adolescents. Adolescence, 32, 395–405.
7.
DAWN. (2004). U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2003: [United States] [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center [producer], 2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004.
8.
FielderK. (1988). The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors. Psychological Research, 50, 123–129
9.
FoltinR. W., & EvansS. M. (1993). Performance effects of drugs of abuse: A methodological survey. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 8, 9–19.
10.
FranklinD.DavisL.HossfeldM., & CareyB. (1990). Hooked, not hooked: Why isn't everyone an addict?In Health, 4, 38–53.
11.
KostenT. R.RounsavilleB. J.BaborT. F.SpitzerR. L., & WilliamsJ. B. (1987). Substance-use disorders in DSM-III-R: Evidence for the dependence syndrome across different psychoactive substances. British Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 834–843.
12.
KozelN. J., & SlobodaZ. (1998). Assessing drug abuse within and across communities: Community epidemiology surveillance networks on drug abuse. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH Publication No. 98–3614.
13.
MacdonaldS.MannR. E.ChipmanM., & Anglin-BodrugK. (2004). Collisions and traffic violations of alcohol, cannabis and cocaine abuse clients before and after treatment. Accident, Analysis, and Prevention, 36, 795–800.
14.
McCambridgeJ., & StrangJ. (2004). Drug problem—What problems? Concurrent predictors of selected types of drug problems in a London community sample of young people who use drugs. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 55–66.
15.
McLellanA. T.LuborskyL.CacciolaJ.GriffithJ.EvansF.BarrH. L., & O'BrienC. P. (1985). New data from the Addiction Severity Index: Reliability & validity in three centers. Journal of Mental and Nervous Disease, 173, 412–423.
16.
McLellanA. T.KushnerH.MetzgerD.PetersR.SmithI.GrissomG.PettinatiH., & ArgeriouM. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index: Cautions, additions and normative data. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9, 461–480.
17.
MorgensteinJ., & LangenbucherJ. (1994). The generalizability of the dependence syndrome across substances: An examination of some properties of the proposed DSM-IV dependence criteria. Addiction, 89, 1105–1113.
18.
MuraP.KintzP.LudesB.GaulierJ. M.MarquetP.Martin-DupontS.VincentF.KaddourA.GoulléJ. P.NouveauJ.MoulsmaM.Tilhet-CoartetS., & PourratO. (2003). Comparison of the prevalence of alcohol, cannabis and other drugs between 900 injured drivers and 900 control subjects: Results of a French collaborative study. Forensic Science International, 133, 79–85.
19.
NDTA. (2004). National drug threat assessment. Johnstown, PA: National Drug Intelligence Center.
20.
NSDUH. (1997). U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1997 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute/Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center [producers], 1997. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1997.
21.
NSDUH. (2004). U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2004 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute [producer], 2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004.
22.
RawsonR. A.HuberA.BrethenP.ObertJ.GulatiV.ShoptawS.LingW.SeymourR. B., & ChambersT. (2000). Methamphetamine and cocaine users: Differences in characteristics and treatment retention. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 32, 233–238.
23.
ShamblenS.SpringerJ. F.JohnsonK.DwivediP.FreudenthalJ.SchutJ.WillisJ.HessD., & LainhartR. (2006). Tennessee State Epidemiological Workgroup (SEW) assessment of substance abuse consumption and consequences, related problems, and readiness to implement the SPF-SIG. Louisville, KY: Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation.
