Estimating the Prevalence of Substance Abuse with Social Indictors

• NCJ Number: 195890
• Journal: Journal of Drug Issues Volume: 31 Issue: 4 Dated: Fall 2001 Pages: 977-988
• Author(s): James A. McRae Jr.; Timothy J. Beebe; Patricia A. Harrison
• Editor(s): Bruce Bullington
• Date Published: 2001
• Length: 12 pages
• Grant Number(s): 277-95-1035
• Sponsoring Agency: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin (SAMHSA)
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

In this study measures of the use of alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs on social indicators that fall into three categories: demographics, measures of social disorganization, and measures more directly related to the use of substances, were regressed with both the individual and the county as the unit.

Abstract

This article contributes to the discussion about the utility of social indicators in estimating substance abuse. In this study measures of the use of alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs on social indicators that fall into three categories: demographics, measures of social disorganization, and measures more directly related to the use of substances were regressed with both the individual and the county as the unit. As the collection of this information is vitally important for planning, prevention, and treatment, allocation of resources, and evaluation of problems, systematic investigations assessing the concordance of survey and social indicator data are warranted. The Minnesota Adult Household Survey, the 1995 Minnesota Student Survey, and various State agencies provided the data for this study. A model-based social indicator approach which incorporates survey and social indicator data was used. Factor analysis proved difficult to interpret and sacrificed too much for what was gained in parsimony, thus individual items were maintained in the analysis. As a result of this study, it was concluded that supplanting survey data with social indicator data was unwise, as too much important data was lost with social indicators. Also, it is warned that including variables in the model on the basis of two-tailed tests of significance leads to a large number of effects which are in the wrong direction. In conclusion, it is suggested that reliance on social indicator data to supplant survey estimates on the prevalence of substance abuse requires further validation, attention to sources of bias in the indicator data, and replication of the models over time. Tables, references