Prevalence of use of performance enhancing drugs by fitness centre members

Drug Testing and Analysis

Volumn 6, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 434-438

  Stubbe, Janine H ^a,b   Chorus, Astrid M J ^a   Frank, Laurence E ^c   de Hon, Olivier ^d   van der Heijden, Peter G M ^c,e  

^a TNO   (Netherlands)

^b AMSTERDAM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d Anti Doping Authority The Netherlands   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Doping use; Prevalence estimates; Randomized response technique

Indexed keywords

DRUG INTERACTIONS;

ANABOLIC STEROID; CLASSIFIEDS; DOPING USE; GROWTH HORMONES; PERFORMANCE ENHANCING; PREVALENCE ESTIMATE; RANDOMIZED RESPONSE TECHNIQUES; SENSITIVE INFORMATIONS; SIDE EFFECT; SURVEY METHODS;

LIPIDS;

ANABOLIC AGENT; CLOMIFENE; DIURETIC AGENT; GROWTH HORMONE; HORMONE PRECURSOR; INSULIN; PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUBSTANCE; STEROID; TAMOXIFEN; THYROID HORMONE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATHLETE; DRUG USE; FEMALE; FITNESS; HUMAN; MALE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEALTH CENTER; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MANPOWER; SELF REPORT; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; FITNESS CENTERS; HUMANS; MALE; PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING SUBSTANCES; SELF REPORT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84899946713     PISSN: 19427603     EISSN: 19427611     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dta.1525     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. V. Lentillon-Kaestner, F. Ohl . Can we measure accurately the prevalence of doping? Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2011, 21, 132.
2. E.M. Castillo, R.D. Comstock . Prevalence of use of performance-enhancing substances among United States adolescents. Pediatr. Clin. N. Am. 2007, 54, 663.
3. P. Laure . Epidemiologic approach of doping in sport. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 1997, 37, 218.
4. F. Sjoqvist, M. Garle, A. Rane . Use of doping agents, particularly anabolic steroids, in sports and society. Lancet 2008, 371, 1872.
5. I. Thiblin, A. Petersson . Pharmacoepidemiology of anabolic androgenic steroids: A review. Fund. Clin. Pharmacol. 2004, 19, 27.
6. M. Uvacsek, T. Nepusz, D.P. Naughton, J. Mazanov, M.Z. Ránky, A. Petróczi . Self-admitted behaviour and perceived use of performance-enhancing vs psychoactive drugs among competitive athletes. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2011, 21, 224.
7. A.G. Blouin, G.S. Goldfield . Body image and steroid use in male bodybuilders. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 1995, 18, 159.
8. V.R. Maharaj, T. Dookie, S. Mohammed, S. Ince, B.L. Marsang, N. Rambocas, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of anabolic steroid usage among gym users in Trinidad. West Indian Med. J. 2000, 49, 55.
9. C.H. Wiefferink, S.B. Detmar, B. Coumans, T. Vogels, T.G.W. Paulussen . Social psychological determinants of the use of performance enhancing drugs. Health Educ. Res. 2008, 23, 70.
10. A. Petróczi, E.V. Aidman, I. Hussain, N. Deshmukh, T. Nepusz, M. Uvacsek, et al. Virtue or pretense? Looking behind self-declared innocence in doping. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10457.
11. P. Simon, H. Striegel, F. Aust, K. Dietz, R. Ulrich . Doping in fitness sports: Estimated numbers of unreported cases and individual probability of doping. Addiction 2006, 101, 1640.
12. A. Chaudhuri, R. Mukerjee . Randomized Response: Theory and Techniques. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1988.
13. G.J.L.M. Lensvelt-Mulders, J.J. Hox, P.G.M. van der Heijden, C.J.M. Maas . Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirty-five years of validation. Sociol. Method Res. 2005, 33, 319.
14. H. Striegel, R. Ulrich, P. Simon . Randomized response estimates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010, 106, 230.
15. J.A. Fox, P.E. Tracy . Randomized Response. A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, London, 1986.
16. L.E. Frank, A. van den Hout, P.G.M. van der Heijden . Repeated cross-sectional randomized response data taking design change and self-protective responses into account. Methodology 2009, 5, 145.
17. R.F. Boruch . Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: A note on strategies. Am Sociologist 1971, 6, 308.
18. G.J.L.M. Lensvelt-Mulders, J.J. Hox, P.G.M. van der Heijden . How to improve the efficiency of randomized response designs. Qual. Quant. 2005, 39, 253.
19. S.E. Edgell, S. Himmelfarb, K.L. Duncan . Validity of forced response in a randomized response model. Sociol. Method Res. 1982, 11, 89.
20. M. Cruyff, A. van den Hout, P.G.M. van der Heijden, U. Böckenholt . Log-linear randomized-response models taking self-protective response behaviour into account. Sociol. Method Res. 2007, 36, 266.
21. A. Agresti . Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2002.
22. S.J. Clark, R.A. Desharnais . Honest answers to embarrassing questions: Detecting cheating in the randomized response model. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 160.
23. A. Petroczi, M. Uvacsek, T. Nepusz, N. Deshmukh, I. Shah, E.V. Aidman, et al. Incongruence in doping related attitudes, beliefs and opinions in the context of discordant behavioural data: In which measure do we trust? PLoS One 2011, 6, e18804.
24. M. Thevis, M. Sauer, H. Geyer, G. Sigmund, U. Mareck, W. Schanzer . Determination of the prevalence of anabolic steroids, stimulants, and selected drugs subject to doping controls among elite sport students using analytical chemistry. J. Sports Sci. 2008, 26, 1059.
25. J. Lucassen, M. Van Schendel . De fitnessbranche in beeld. Resultaten van de nationale fitnessmonitor. Arko Sports Media, Nieuwegein, 2008.