Differential profiles of crack users in respondent-driven and institutional samples: A three-site comparison

European Addiction Research

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 184-192

  Oteo Pérez, Alberto ^a   Benschop, Annemieke ^a   Korf, Dirk J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Crack cocaine; Hidden populations; Institutional sampling; Profile of users; Respondent driven sampling; Social epidemiology; The Netherlands

Indexed keywords

DIAMORPHINE; METHADONE;

ACADEMIC FAILURE; ADULT; ARTICLE; COCAINE DEPENDENCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ETHNICITY; FEMALE; HOSPITAL CARE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NETHERLANDS; OPIATE ADDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING; SEX DIFFERENCE; SUBSTITUTION THERAPY;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; CRACK COCAINE; DEMOGRAPHY; DRUG USERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INSTITUTIONALIZATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT SELECTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SAMPLING STUDIES; SELECTION BIAS; SEX DISTRIBUTION; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 84858994215     PISSN: 10226877     EISSN: 14219891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000336118     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Grund JPC: Drug Use as a Social Ritual: Functionality, Symbolism and Determinants of Self-Regulation. Rotterdam, Erasmus Universiteit, 1993.
2. Korf DJ: Dutch treat: formal control and illicit drug use in the Netherlands; dissertation, Amsterdam, 1995.
3. Barendregt C, Wits E: Chronisch problematische verslaafden in Flevoland. Rotterdam, IVO, 2009.
4. Van der Poel A, Barendregt C, van de Mheen D: Drug users' participation in addiction care: different groups do different things. J Psychoactive Drugs 2006;38:123-132.
5. Boekhout van Solinge T: Op de pof: cocaïnegebruik en gezondheid op straat. Amsterdam, Rozenberg, 2001.
6. Nabben T, Korf DJ: Cocaine and crack in Amsterdam: diverging subcultures. J Drug Issues 1999;29:627-651.
7. Van der Poel A, van de Mheen D: Young people using crack and the process of marginalization. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 2006;13:45-59.
8. Coumans M, Spreen M: Drug use and the role of homelessness in the process of marginalization. Subst Use Misuse 2003;38:311.
9. LADIS: Cocaïnehulpvraag in de ambulante verslavingszorg in Nederland (2002-2005). Utrecht, Stichting Informatie Voorziening Zorg (SIVZ), 2006.
10. Ouwehand AW, Kuipers WGT, Wisselink DJ, van Delden EB: Kerncijfers verslavingszorg 2009. Houten, Stichting Informatie Voorziening Zorg (SIVZ), 2010.
11. Pottieger AE: Drug use patterns of adult crack users in street versus residential treatment samples. J Psychoactive Drugs 1995;27:27-38.
12. Eland-Goossensen MA, van de Goor LAM, Garretsen HFL, Schudel WJ: Opiate addicts in and outside treatment compared on psychopathology. Eur Addict Res 1997;3:164-172.
13. Dunn J, Ferri CP: Epidemiological methods for research with drug misusers: review of methods for studying prevalence and morbidity. Rev Saúde Pública 1999;33:206-215.
14. Hendriks VM, Blanken P, Adriaans NFP, Hartnoll R: Snowball Sampling: A Pilot Study on Cocaine Use. Rotterdam, IVO, 1992.
15. Bieleman B, Diaz A, Merlo G, Kaplan CD (eds): Lines Across Europe: Nature and Extent of Cocaine Use in Barcelona, Rotterdam and Turin. Amsterdam, Swets & Zeitlinger, 1993.
16. Korf DJ: The tip of the iceberg: snowball sampling and nomination techniques, the experience of Dutch studies; in European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (ed): Estimating the Prevalence of Problem Drug Use in Europe. Lisbon, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 1997, pp 171-176.
17. Barendregt C, van der Poel A, van de Mheen D: Tracing selection effects in three nonprobability samples. Eur Addict Res 2005;11:124-131.
18. Goodman LA: Snowball sampling. Ann Math Stat 1961;32:148-170.
19. Eland-Goossensen MA, van de Goor LAMV, Vollemans EC, Hendriks VM, Garretsen HFL: Snowball sampling applied to opiate addicts outside the treatment system. Addict Res Theory 1997;5:317-330.
20. Kaplan CD, Korf DJ, Sterk C: Temporal and social contexts of heroin-using populations: an illustration of the snowball sampling technique. J Nerv Ment Dis 1987;175:566-574.
21. Frank O, Snijders T: Estimating the size of hidden populations using snowball sampling: an international review. J Off Stat 1994;10:53-68.
22. Heckathorn DD: Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl 1997;44:174-199.
23. Heckathorn DD: Respondent-driven sampling. II. Deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Soc Probl 2002;49:11-34.
24. Salganik MJ: Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Soc Methodol 2004;34:193-239.
25. Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D: Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS 2005;19:67-72.
26. Johnston LG: Implementation challenges to using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance. field experiences in international settings. AIDS Behav 2008;12:131-141.
27. Platt L: Methods to recruit hard-to-reach groups: comparing two chain referral sampling methods of recruiting injecting drug users across nine studies in Russia and Estonia. J Urban Health 2006;83:I39-I53.
28. Robinson WT: Recruiting injection drug users: a three-site comparison of results and experiences with respondent-driven and targeted sampling procedures. J Urban Health 2006;83:29-38.
29. Rudolph AE, Crawford ND, Latkin C, Heimer R, Benjamin EO, Jones KC, Fuller CM: Subpopulations of illicit drug users reached by targeted street outreach and respondent-driven sampling strategies: implications for research and public health practice. Ann Epidemiol 2011;21:280-289.
30. Kral AH: Comparing respondent-driven sampling and targeted sampling methods of recruiting injection drug users in San Francisco. J Urban Health 2010;87:839-850.
31. Stormer A: An analysis of respondent driven sampling with injection drug users (IDU) in Albania and the Russian federation. J Urban Health 2006;83:I73-I82.
32. Frost S: Respondent-driven sampling of injection drug users in two US-Mexico border cities: recruitment dynamics and impact on estimates of HIV and syphilis prevalence. J Urban Health 2006;83:I83-I97.
33. Burt RD, Hagan H, Sabin K, Thiede H: Evaluating respondent-driven sampling in a major metropolitan area: comparing injection drug users in the 2005 Seattle area national HIV behavioral surveillance system survey with participants in the RAVEN and Kiwi studies. Ann Epidemiol 2010;20:159-167.
34. Johnston LG, Sabin K: Sampling hard-toreach populations with respondent driven sampling. Methodological Innovations Online 2010;5:38-48.
35. Smit F, Van Laar M, Wiessing L: Estimating problem drug use prevalence at national level: comparison of three methods. Drug Educ Prev Policy 2006;13:109-120.
36. Alders M: Classification of the population with a foreign background in the Netherlands. Voorburg, Statistics Netherlands, 2001.
37. Volz E: Respondent-driven sampling analysis tool (RDSAT), version 6.0. Beta. Ithaca, Cornell University. http://www.respondentdrivensampling.org (accessed 11 August 2011).
38. Ramirez-Valles J, Garcia D, Campbell RT, Diaz RM, Heckathorn DD: HIV infection, sexual risk behavior, and substance use among Latino gay and bisexual men and transgender persons. Am J Public Health 2008;98:1036-1042.
39. Kendall C: An empirical comparison of respondent-driven sampling, time location sampling, and snowball sampling for behavioral surveillance in men who have sex with men, Fortaleza, Brazil. AIDS Behav 2008;12:S97-S104.
40. Schenker N: On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidence intervals. Am Stat 2001;55:182-186.
41. Cruts AAN, van Laar MW: Aantal problematische drugsgebruikers in Nederland. Utrecht, Trimbos Instituut, 2010.