Challenges of reliability and validity in the identification and monitoring of emerging drug trends

Substance Use and Misuse

Volumn 45, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 266-287

  Mounteney, Jane ^a   Fry, Craig ^b   McKeganey, Neil ^c   Haugland, Siren ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Drug use trends; Reliability; Triangulation; Validity

Indexed keywords

DATA COLLECTION; DRUG INFORMATION SERVICES; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SUBSTANCE ABUSE DETECTION; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 73649112054     PISSN: 10826084     EISSN: 15322491     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10826080903368598     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Alvarez, J. (2003). Emerging drug phenomena. A european manual for the early information function for emerging drug phenomena. Paris: OFDT.
2. Blaikie, N. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality & Quantity, 25:115-136.
3. Bless, R. (2003). Experiences of the multi-city network of the Pompidou Group, 1983-2002. Bulletin on Narcotics, LV(1&2):31-40.
4. Bowker, N. (2001). Understanding online communities through multiple methodologies combined under a post modern research endeavour. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1) Retrieved January 25, 2007 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-01/1-01bowker-e.htm
5. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(8):8-22.
6. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design. qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Day, C., Collins, L., Degenhardt, L., Thetford, C., Maher, L. (2004). Reliability of heroin users' reports of drug use behaviour using a 24 month timeline follow-back technique to assess the impact of the Australian heroin shortage. Addiction Research and Theory, 12(5):433-443.
8. Degenhardt, L., Dietze, P. (2005). Monograph No. 10: Data sources on illicit drug use and harm in Australia. DPMP Monograph Series. Fitzroy, Australia: Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre.
9. Denzin, N. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10. Drug Detection Laboratories Inc (DDL). (2006). Retrieved November 18, 2006 from http://www.drugdetection.net/drug.htm
11. Hartnoll, R. (1997). Cross-validating at local level. Chapter in estimating the prevalence of problem drug use in Europe. EMCDDA Scientific Monograph. No.1., Lisbon.
12. EMCDDA. (2005). EMCDDA thematic papers - youth media. Lisbon, Portugal.
13. EMCDDA. (2006a). Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12 December 2006) on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (recast). .ast;http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ site/en/oj/2006/l 376/l 37620061227en00010013.pdf
14. EMCDDA. (2006b). EMCDDA thematic papers-Hallucinogenic mushrooms: An emerging trend case study. Lisbon, Portual: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
15. Gilmour, S., Degenhardt, L., Hall, W., Day, C. (2006). Using intervention time series analyses to assess the effects of imperfectly identifiable natural events: A general method and example. BMC Medical Research Methodology 6:16.
16. Greene, J., McClintok, C. (1985). Triangulation in evaluation: Design and analysis issues. Evaluation Review, 9:523-545
17. Griffiths, P., Vingoe, L., Hunt, N., Mounteney, J., Hartnoll, R. (2000). Drug information systems, early warning and new drug trends: Can drug monitoring systems become more sensitive to emerging trends in drug consumption? Substance Use Misuse, 35(6-8):811-844
18. Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Resources Information Center Annual Review Paper, 29;75-91.
19. Hando, J., Darke, S., O'Brien, S. (1998). The development of an early warning system to detect trends in illicit drug use in Australia: The illicit drug reporting system. Addiction Research, 6:97-113.
20. Hartnoll, R., Avico, U., Ingold, F., Lange, K., Lenke, L., O'Hare, A., et al. (1989). A multi-city study of drug misuse in Europe. Vienna: UNODC Bulletin.
21. Hartnoll, R., Hendriks, V., Morrival, M. (1998). The assessment of drug problems. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
22. Hilton, A. (2005). Should qualitative and quantitative studies be triangulated? International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care, Retrieved January 17, 2007 from .ast;http://www.isncc.org/lists.asp?Table=News&Page=Triangle
23. Hser, Y.-I. (1993). Prevalence estimation: Summary of common problems and practical solutions. Journal of Drug Issues, 23(2):335-343.
24. Johnston, L. (1980). Review of general population surveys of drug abuse. WHO Offset publication No. 52. Switzerland: WHO Geneva.
25. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2006). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7):14-26.
26. Kelle,U. (2001). Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1) Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://qualitative- research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm.
27. Kemmesis, U., Hess, H. (2001). MoSyd. monitoring-system drogentrends. Frankfurt, Germany:Centre for Drug Research.
28. Kirk, J., Miller, M. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
29. Korf, D., Nabben, T. (2002). Antenna: A multi-method approach to assessing new drug trends in EMCDDA understanding and responding to drug use: The role of qualitative research. Lisbon, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
30. Kretting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3):214-223.
31. Kumar, K. (1989). Conducting key informant interviews in developing countries. A.I.D. program design and evaluation. Methodology report no.13. Agency for International Development.
32. McKeganey, N. (2000). Rapid assessment: Really useful knowledge or an argument for bad science? International Journal of Drug Policy, 11:13-18.
33. Mitchell, E. (1986). Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in Nursing Science, 8:18-26.
34. Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1:48-76.
35. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40:120-123.
36. Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Morse, J., Barret, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2):Spring 2002, 1-19.
38. Mounteney, J., Haugland, S. (2009). Earlier warning: A multi-indicator approach to monitoring of trends in the illicit use of medicines. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20:161-169.
39. Mounteney, J., Leirvag, S.-E. (2004). Providing an earlier warning of emerging drug trends: The føre var system. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 11(6):449-471.
40. Office of Applied Studies (OAS). (2006). Drug abuse warning network, 2004: National estimates of drug-related emergency department visits. DAWN Series D-28, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 06-4143, Rockville, MD, April 2006.
41. O'Gorman, A., Doyle, M., Crean, D., Cox, G. (2007). National drug trend monitoring system (DTMS) pilot study. Summary Report. Dublin, Ireland: NACD.
42. Pach, A., III, Gorman, E. (2002). An ethno-epidemiological approach for the multi-site study of emerging drug abuse trends: The spread of methamphetamine in the USA. Bulletin on Narcotics, LIV(1&2):87-99.
43. Parker, H., Newcombe, R., Bakx, K. (1988). The new heroin users: Prevalence and characteristics in Wirral, Merseyside. British Journal of Addiction, 82:147-157.
44. Parry, C., Bhana, A., Pl̈uddemann1, A., Myers, B., Siegfried, N., Morojele, N., et al. (2002). The SouthAfrican community epidemiology network on drug use (SACENDU): Description, findings (1997-99) and policy implications. Addiction, 97:969-976. (Pubitemid 34888484)
45. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46. Rhodes, T.,Kumar, S. M., Fitch, C. (2000). Special issue: Rapid assessment and response. International Journal of Drug Policy, 11:1-2.
47. Rossman,G.,Wilson, B. (1985).Numbers andwords: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5):627-643.
48. Schifano, F., Leoni, M., Martinotti, G., Rawaf, S., Rovetto, F. (2003). 'Importance of cyberspace for the assessment of the drug abuse market: Preliminary results from Psychonaut 2002 Project'. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 6:405-410.
49. Shih, F. (1998). Triangulation in nursing research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(3):631-641.
50. Sloboda, Z., Kozel, N. (1999). In Glantz & Hartel (Eds.), Frontline surveillance in the community epidemiology work group on drug abuse. Drug abuse origins and interventions (pp. 47-62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
51. Sloboda, Z., Kozel, N. (2003). Understanding drug trends in the USA: The role of the community epidemiology work group as part of a comprehensive drug information system. Bulletin on Narcotics, LV(1&2):1-13.
52. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53. Trewin, D. (2001). Illicit drug use sources of Australian data. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
54. Trochim, W. (1996). Introduction to validity. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from htttp://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/INTROVAL.htm
55. van deMheen, H., Coumans,M., Barendregt, A., van der Poel, A. (2006). A drug monitoring system: Keeping a finger on the pulse by triangulation of qualitative and quantitative methods. Addiction Research and Theory, 14(5):461-473.