Perception of Drug Abuse in Society: A Scale Development Study

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to develop a scale upon perception of drug abuse in society.

Method: The study sample consisted of a total of 1531 person aged over 18 years old. For this sampling, a few district were selected randomly in Eskişehir. There have been obtained data for demographic properties and perception of drug abuse by the surveys which applied to persons. Existing perception of drug abuse in society has been researched by the analyzing the collected data. 

Results: There is four important factor up to begin drugs and continue to drug abuse: personal conditions by family attitude, society and friends, society susceptibility and the struggle of institutions and organizations. The reliability of these 4 factors was 84,8%, the variance explanation rate was 52% and the goodness of fit values were higher than 90%.

Conclusion: People think that family, friendship, society and institutions are effect up to starting drugs abuse. However, they are refraining from expressing a role to themselves in the struggle against this problem too. People are considered to be responsible for this subject, but people also think that they exclude the drug addicts and their family. 

Keywords

• Drug Abuse,Social Conditions,Social Behavior Disorder

Toplumda Madde Bağımlılığı Algısı: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, toplumda madde bağımlılığı algısı için bir ölçek geliştirmektir.

Yöntem: Araştırmanın örneklemini 18 yaş üstü 1531 birey oluşturmaktadır. Bu örneklem için Eskişehir’im farklı semtleri rassal olarak seçilmiştir. Uygulanan anketler sayesinde, katılımcıların demografik özellikleri ve madde bağımlılığı hakkındaki düşünceleri derlenmiştir. Toplanan veriler analiz edilerek, kişilerde mevcut madde bağımlılığı algısı ve bağımlılığa etkili faktörler araştırılmıştır.

Bulgular: Kişilerin uyuşturucu madde kullanımına başlaması ve devam etmesi üzerinde 4 faktörün etkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir: Bireysel koşullar ve aile, çevresi ile arkadaşları, toplum tutumu ve kurum ve kuruluşların mücadelesi. Belirlenen bu 4 faktörün güvenilirliği %84,8, Varyans Açıklama Oranı %52, uyum iyiliği değerleri ise %90’ın üzerinde çıkmıştır. 

Sonuç: Kişiler, aile, çevre, arkadaşlar ve kurumların tutumlarının madde bağımlılığına başlanması ve devamı üzerinde etkili olduğunu söylemektedir ancak bu problemle mücadele konusunda kendilerine de bir rol düştüğünü ifade etmekten kaçınmaktadırlar. Ek olarak bu problemdeki sorumluluğun toplumdan kaynaklandığını ifade etmelerine rağmen yine toplumun madde bağımlılarını ve ailelerini dışladıklarını da kabul etmektedirler.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bağımlılık,Sosyal Koşullar,Sosyal Davranış Bozukluğu

Kaynakça

1. 1. Nestler EJ. Cellular basis of memory for addiction. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. 2013;15(4):431.
2. 2. Taylor SB, Lewis CR, Olive MF. The neurocircuitry of illicit psychostimulant addiction: acute and chronic effects in humans. Substance abuse and rehabilitation. 2013;4:29.
3. 3. Benton D. The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders. Clinical nutrition. 2010;29(3):288-303.
4. 4. Dackis C, O'Brien C. Neurobiology of addiction: treatment and public policy ramifications. Nature neuroscience. 2005;8(11):1431.
5. 5. Di Chiara G. Drug addiction as dopamine-dependent associative learning disorder. European journal of pharmacology. 1999;375(1-3):13-30.
6. 6. Ersche KD, Jones PS, Williams GB, Turton AJ, Robbins TW, Bullmore ET. Abnormal brain structure implicated in stimulant drug addiction. Science. 2012;335(6068):601-4.
7. 7. Hall W, Carter A, Forlini C. The brain disease model of addiction: is it supported by the evidence and has it delivered on its promises? The Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(1):105-10.
8. 8. Koob GF, Buck CL, Cohen A, Edwards S, Park PE, Schlosburg JE, et al. Addiction as a stress surfeit disorder. Neuropharmacology. 2014;76:370-82.

9. 9. Kuhn J, Bauer R, Pohl S, Lenartz D, Huff W, Kim EH, et al. Observations on unaided smoking cessation after deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens. European addiction research. 2009;15(4):196-201.
10. 10. Leshner AI. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science. 1997;278(5335):45-7.
11. 11. Luigjes Jv, Van Den Brink W, Feenstra Mv, Van den Munckhof P, Schuurman P, Schippers R, et al. Deep brain stimulation in addiction: a review of potential brain targets. Molecular psychiatry. 2012;17(6):572.
12. 12. N Gearhardt A, A White M, N Potenza M. Binge eating disorder and food addiction. Current drug abuse reviews. 2011;4(3):201-7.
13. 13. Pelloux Y, Baunez C. Deep brain stimulation for addiction: why the subthalamic nucleus should be favored. Current opinion in neurobiology. 2013;23(4):713-20.
14. 14. Ruffle JK. Molecular neurobiology of addiction: what’s all the (Δ) FosB about? The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse. 2014;40(6):428-37.
15. 15. Valencia-Alfonso C-E, Luigjes J, Smolders R, Cohen MX, Levar N, Mazaheri A, et al. Effective deep brain stimulation in heroin addiction: a case report with complementary intracranial electroencephalogram. Biological psychiatry. 2012;71(8):e35-e7.
16. 16. Young KS. Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychology & behavior. 1998;1(3):237-44.
17. 17. Yuan K, Qin W, Wang G, Zeng F, Zhao L, Yang X, et al. Microstructure abnormalities in adolescents with internet addiction disorder. PloS one. 2011;6(6):e20708.
18. 18. Chandler RK, Fletcher BW, Volkow ND. Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: improving public health and safety. Jama. 2009;301(2):183-90.
19. 19. Barrett AE, Turner RJ. Family structure and substance use problems in adolescence and early adulthood: examining explanations for the relationship. Addiction. 2006;101(1):109-20.
20. 20. Copello AG, Velleman RD, Templeton LJ. Family interventions in the treatment of alcohol and drug problems. Drug and alcohol review. 2005;24(4):369-85.
21. 21. Hirsch R, Imhof JE. A Family Therapy Approach to the Treatment of Drug Addiction. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs. 1975;7(2):181-5.
22. 22. Lewis RA, Piercy FP, Sprenkle DH, Trepper TS. Family-based interventions for helping drug-abusing adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research. 1990;5(1):82-95.23. Liddle HA, Dakof GA, Turner RM, Henderson CE, Greenbaum PE. Treating adolescent drug abuse: A randomized trial comparing multidimensional family therapy and cognitive behavior therapy. Addiction. 2008;103(10):1660-70.
23. 24. Rowe CL. Family therapy for drug abuse: Review and updates 2003–2010. Journal of marital and family therapy. 2012;38(1):59-81.
24. 25. Schafer G. Family functioning in families with alcohol and other drug addiction. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand. 2011;37(2):135-51.
25. 26. Szapocznik J, Hervis O, Schwartz S. Therapy Manuals for Drug Addiction: brief strategic family therapy for adolescnet drug abuse. Manual 5: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health …; 2003.
26. 27. Kotrlik J, Higgins C. Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Information technology, learning, and performance journal. 2001;19(1):43.
27. 28. Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31-6.
28. 29. Bartlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of statistical psychology. 1950;3(2):77-85.
29. 30. Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin. 1980;88(3):588.
30. 31. Marsh HW, Balla JR, McDonald RP. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological bulletin. 1988;103(3):391.
31. 32. Cami J, Farré M. Drug addiction. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003;349(10):975-86.
32. 33. de Rios MD, Smith DE. Drug use and abuse in cross cultural perspective. Human Organization. 1977;36(1):14.
33. 34. Davies JB. Myth of addiction: Routledge; 2013.
34. 35. Goode E. Drugs in American society: Knopf New York; 1989.
35. 36. Hanson G, Venturelli P, Fleckenstein A. Drugs and society: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2011.
36. 37. Orford J, Copello A, Velleman R, Templeton L. Family members affected by a close relative's addiction: The stress-strain-coping-support model. Drugs: education, prevention and policy. 2010;17(sup1):36-43.
37. 38. Cohen FS, Densen-Gerber J. A study of the relationship between child abuse and drug addiction in 178 patients: Preliminary results. Child Abuse & Neglect. 1982;6(4):383-7.
38. 39. Stanton MD, Todd TC. The family therapy of drug abuse and addiction: Guilford Press; 1982.
39. 40. Brown BS, Flynn PM. The federal role in drug abuse technology transfer: A history and perspective. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;22(4):245-57.
40. 41. Gregoire TK. Assessing the benefits and increasing the utility of addiction training for public child welfare workers: A pilot study. Child Welfare. 1994;73(1):69.
41. 42. Worrall JL. Addicted to the drug war: The role of civil asset forfeiture as a budgetary necessity in contemporary law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2001;29(3):171-87.
42. 43. Ringold DJ. Boomerang effects in response to public health interventions: Some unintended consequences in the alcoholic beverage market. Journal of Consumer Policy. 2002;25(1):27-63.
43. 44. Benowitz NL. Nicotine safety and toxicity: Oxford University Press, USA; 1998.
44. 45. Barry CL, McGinty EE, Pescosolido BA, Goldman HH. Stigma, discrimination, treatment effectiveness, and policy: public views about drug addiction and mental illness. Psychiatric Services. 2014;65(10):1269-72.