Critique of a Research Study: “Familiar Risk Factors Favoring Drug Addiction Onset”

Introduction

The study analyzed in this paper is named “Familiar risk factors favoring drug addiction onset”. The authors of the study are Jadranka Ivandić Zimić, Ph.D. (Senior Adviser to the Government and to the Governmental Office of the General Programs & Strategies Department, Office for Combating Drug Abuse of the Government of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb,Croatia) and Vlado Jukić, M.D., Ph.D. (Head of the Hospital, Psychiatric Hospital Vrapce, Zagreb, Croatia). The purpose of this study is investigating and identifying familiar risk factors that are associated with drug addiction onset. According to Zimić and Jukić (2012), the goal of the study is identifying the differences between non-addicts’ and addicts’ families in terms of social, family and interaction factors.

The research is quantitative in nature, but there is no explicit research hypothesis listed. Key family factors that might influence the onset of drug addiction are divided into three groups: developmental features, sociological features and interaction features (Zimić & Jukić, 2012). The authors build on the previous research findings and assume that in each group of family factors (developmental, interaction and sociological features) there are factors that correlate with drug addiction onset. The existence of such factors in each feature group might be perceived as a separate research hypothesis (i.e. there are three implicit hypotheses in this study).

The authors presented an in-depth literature review summarizing a variety of research findings associated with the research topic. They clearly outlined the actuality of the research along with cultural and social effects of drug abuse, and linked the occurrence of drug abuse to family factors. Furthermore, the authors reviewed the findings on drug addiction onset and classified the existing studies and theories into the following groups: developmental theories, interaction theories and sociological theories. These three kinds of theories were further used to classify family factors that might be associated with drug addiction onset into three groups. The literature review seems to be not biased and includes a substantial number of resources. One potential weakness of this literature review, however, is the excessive reliance on two National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) studies. These studies are reliable and scientifically valuable, but the authors cite them in every section of the literature review and further frequently refer to these studies in the body of the research.

Methods

The study is designed as an experiment, with experimental and control group. However, it is possible to state that the study has quasi-experimental design since the experimental group was chosen in a non-randomized manner (Mills, Abdulla & Cribbie, 2010). Indeed, the participants were drug addicts undergoing residential treatment on the premises of the Psychiatric Hospital Vrapce or of the Clinical Hospital “Sisters of Mercy” in Zagreb (Zimić & Jukić, 2012). It is important to mention that the authors recruited the participants in the control group in such a way that socio-demographic characteristics of the groups (gender, age, magnitude of the place of residence and the place of birth) are identical; the only difference is in educational level – the control group has a slightly higher educational level (Zimić & Jukić, 2012). The authors kept this difference on purpose, since literature review shows that poor academic achievements are associated with antisocial behavior and substance abuse (i.e. the experimental group is expected to have lower educational attainment).

The study uses quantitative approach. Sample size includes 146 drug addicts in the experimental group and 134 individuals in the control group. The sampling method in the study is purposive sampling: the experimental group was recruited in two hospitals among patients with drug addiction, and the control group was recruited to match the demographic characteristics of the experimental group. The data were collected using questionnaires. It should be noted that the majority of family variables collected in the questionnaires were nominal or qualitative (open category answers). For qualitative variables, the researchers coded the answers into categorical variables, converting the open response into several categories (positive, neutral, negative) (Zimić & Jukić, 2012).

According to Zimić & Jukić (2012), the data were analyzed using descriptive and parametric statistics. Significance level was chosen at .05. Chi-square test was used for nonparametric statistical comparison; this method matches the nature of variables and the research. The authors also mention correlation analysis, but do not provide more specific information about the type of analysis. It is not clear how and where parametric methods were applied, and the applicability of parametric analysis methods is also questionable. Basing on the nature of the data in the study, it is possible to recommend nonparametric correlation methods (such as Spearman R) for variables that might be classified as ordinal (Wetcher-Hendricks, 2014).

Ethical Aspects

This study has a number of relevant ethical issues that were effectively addressed by the authors. The potential issues common for both groups include confidentiality and information about the study (Freese, 2007). The questionnaire was approved by the Board of Ethics of University of Medicine in Zagreb and the Boards of Ethics of Hospital Vrapce and Clinical Hospital Sister of Mercy (the hospitals where the questionnaires were administered). The questionnaire was anonymous and did not include any details allowing to disclose one’s identity (only year of birth was included to assess the participant’s age). The researchers explained the purpose of the study to the participants (both orally and in the written form) and personally provided the questionnaires.

The experimental group were drug addicts undergoing residential treatment. Their participation was voluntary, and those who were reluctant to participate were not included in the study. The respondents filled in the questionnaires on their own, independently and in the absence of researchers or medical personnel. Therefore, the participants’ confidentiality and safety were protected, and ethical concerns were addressed at the study design and implementation stages.

Results

The authors found that there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and the control group in terms of familial socio-demographic features, except one variable – parents’ marital status (32% of addicts came from incomplete families compared to 21% in the control group). The differences in familial developmental features, interaction features and sociological features appeared to be statistically significant, so it is possible to state that the initial hypotheses were supported.

As for familial developmental features, significant differences were identified for such factors as separation from parents prior to the age of seven, parental divorce or death of one parent experienced in adolescence or early childhood, stressful experience or psychological trauma, parental surveillance and parental support (Zimić & Jukić, 2012). Major differences in familial interaction features were related to unfavorable emotional relationship with the parents (especially with the father) in childhood or adolescence, imbalanced emotional perception of parents in childhood or adolescence (in favor of mother), uneven perception of parental care and attentiveness and perception of parents in the present, negative communication with the father during childhood and adolescence, and unequal distribution of powers in favor of one parent (Zimić & Jukić, 2012). Finally, with regard to familial sociological features, the experimental group reported a significant difference in familial sociopathology – greater incidence of alcohol abuse and mental disorders (39% for the experimental group and 17% for the control group), mentally challenged parents, greater number of molestation incidents, witnessing domestic violence, incidence of criminal offense in the family, and lower frequency of religious upbringing (Zimić & Jukić, 2012).

The authors clearly divided the actual study results from the discussion and conclusions, and placed this information into different sections. The Results section contains only the data coming from statistical analysis. For each factor comparison, the author provided the results for p-value, the number of degrees of freedom and effect size (chi-square value). Thus, the authors properly presented the results of their analysis in terms of statistical reporting (Maher, Markey & Ebert-May, 2013). However, the authors mentioned correlation analysis in the Methods section, but did not report any correlation coefficients in the Results section. There were also no traces of parametric analysis mentioned in the Methods section.

Discussion and Conclusion

In the Discussion section, the authors interpret their findings and aggregate the results for all three factor sections. Furthermore, the authors link their findings to the theories analyzed in the literature review, and support their conclusions about psychological effects of family conditions and psychological traumas experienced by children and adolescents living in high-risk families. The analysis of the risk factors that influence the propensity towards drug addiction made by the authors is quite extensive, and is supported with evidence. Their conclusions follow the results of the analysis; moreover, the authors draw a complete picture illustrating how at-risk families of drug addicts differed from the families of the control group, and how these differences contributed to the development of the addiction.

The authors assume that the findings of their study can be used to develop policies and preventative family programs allowing to eliminate or mitigate the factors causing drug addiction. The authors suggest that a new direction of development for preventative programs can be created – family-oriented drug addiction prevention (Zimić & Jukić, 2012). The ideas suggested by the authors are quite appealing and their analysis of the familial factors is impressive, but it is not clear how the proposed interventions and policies can be implemented in the reality. Unfortunately, the authors do not elaborate on how their findings can be applied. These results might be useful for further theoretical investigation of psychological problems and substance abuse problems caused by family factors. However, even preventive programs and assessments based on these results will target the problem that might appear many years later, so at-risk families might not approve such interventions. At the same time, it is possible to educate and support such families (if they are willing to cooperate) and at-risk children to reduce the risks of drug addiction in the future, so this direction provides significant perspective for applying the findings of the considered research. 

In general, this study is well-designed, relies on prior evidence to build research hypotheses, contains a decent statistical analysis (with a few questionable statements) and provides meaningful conclusions. A weakness of this study is the potential lack of generalizability. It is not clear whether the characteristics of the studied sample can match the characteristics of the general population of the United States, and to what extent the findings applicable for the experimental and control group can be generalized to other groups. Another weakness is the reference to causal relationships between variables; chi-square analysis conducted by the authors does not provide enough information for making inferences about causal relationships.

The authors mention that it might be useful to continue the research, and to study the cause-effect relationship between the risk and protective factors influencing drug addiction. The researchers do not mention any study limitations. The major limitation evident in this study is the self-reported nature of questionnaires, and the fact that the questions relate to early periods of life – respondents might not remember exactly what has been happening, or remember what they have been told about these periods. It is therefore recommended to add more objective criteria for evaluating familial factors, or at least to incorporate some of the objective family characteristics into the research. This research might be further continued with selecting a group of participants (e.g. teenagers) and carrying out a longitudinal study connecting family factors and the propensity to drug addiction.

References

Freese, J. (2007). Overcoming objections to open-source social science. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(2), 220-226.

Hair, J.F. (2015). Essentials of Business Research Methods. M.E. Sharpe.

Maher, J. M., Markey, J. C. & Ebert-May, D. (2013). The other half of the story: effect size analysis in quantitative research. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 345-351.

Mills, L., Abdulla, E. & Cribbie, R. A. (2010). Quantitative methodology research: is it on psychologists’ reading lists?. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 6(2), 52-60.

Wetcher-Hendricks, D. (2014). Analyzing Quantitative Data: An Introduction for Social Researchers. John Wiley & Sons.

Zimić I.J., & Jukić, V. (2012). Familial risk factors favoring drug addiction onset. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44(2), 173-185.

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person