drug use in general and school population : gpss and school surveys in the czech republic

Drug Use in General and School Population:GPSs and School Surveys in the Czech Republic

Viktor Mravčík MD

The Czech National Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions

3

Content

Introduction – context and methodology EMCDDA requirements Overview of surveys performed in CR Results

4

5 key indicators

drug use in population/GPS and school surveys prevalence estimates of PDU treatment demand indicator drug-related infectious diseases drug-related deaths and mortality of drug users

5

5 key indicators

22.04.2023page 55 KIs

6Richard Hartnoll May 2000

General Population

Drug users

Problem drug users

DRUG DEMAND INDICATORS Treatment demand Drug-related infectious diseases Drug-related deaths & mortality Police arrests (users)

… etc. …. Prevalence/incidence estimates Impact studies (costs, crime …) Targeted studies (risk groups,

drug careers, perceptions …) Surveys (extent & pattern of use in

general population, schools …)

DRUG SUPPLY INDICATORS

Drug availability (seizures, price/purity, surveys …)

Drug market studies (actors, drug flows, economics …)

International supply (trafficking arrests, production estimates ...)

Domestic Drug Supply

International Supply

Key and others core indicators

7

Drug use in general population -questions

extent and patterns of drug use? differences (by age, gender…)? sub-groups with different pattern of use? perceive availability, risks, attitudes towards drugs

and drug users? trends over time? comparable to other countries?

8

Surveys – Theory and Methodology 1

cross-sectional studies on representative sample of population

sample of respondents in given time frame

standard tools – standard questions (questionnaires)

EMQ, ESPAD questioonnaire

sampling of respondents – when standardized/comparable, allows inter-regional comparison and trends over time

quota-sampling (stratified sampling according to basic characteristics – gender, age, region, education)

9

Studies in Adult Population

EMCDDA methodology, i.e. standard questionnaire used = EMQ (European Model Questionnaire)

questions – example: cannabis

Do you personally know people who take hashish or marijuana? 1 yes2 no

Have you ever taken hashish or marijuana yourself? 1 yes2 no

At what age did you take hashish or marijuana for the first time? .........

During the last 12 months, have you taken hashish or marijuana? 1 yes2 no

During the last 30 days, have you taken hashish or marijuana?1 yes2 no

During the last 30 days, how often did you take hashish or marijuana?1 daily or almost daily2 several times a week3 at least once a week4 less than once a week

10

Data collection/interviewing PAPI: Paper And Pencil Interviewing. Data obtained from the interview is filled in on a paper

form using a pencil. CAPI: Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing. This method is very much similar to the

PAPI method, but the data is directly entered into a computer programme instead of first using paper forms.

WAPI: Web Assisted Personal Interviewing. The respondents answer the questions online, but they are also assisted online in doing so.

CASI: Computer Assisted Self Interviewing. The CASI method involves respondents taking place behind the computer themselves in order to fill in the questionnaire.

CAWI: Computer Assisted Web Interviewing. Online research in which data is obtained electronically using online questionnaires.

CATI: Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing. The questions are usually presented to the interviewers on a computer screen, after which they ask them to the respondents.

TAPI: Tablet Assisted Personal Interviewing. This method is virtually identical to the CAPI. TASI: Tablet Assisted Self Interviewing. This method is virtually identical to the CASI. SAPI: Smartphone Assisted Personal Interviewing. With this method, the data is entered into

a smartphone by the interviewer. SASI: Smartphone Assisted Self Interviewing. With this method, the data is entered into a

smartphone by the respondent.(http://www.inviewfieldwork.com)

11

Surveys – Theory and Methodology 2 representativeness

random sampling sample size: sufficient number of respondents structure of the sample has to correspond to distribution of the

characteristic in general population – gender, age, region, education...

respondence ideally >70% (depending on study methodology) questionnaire for non-respondents (reasons)

bias on the side of researcher (e.g. insufficient reliability or validity ) on the side of respondents (e.g. does not want to answer,

response set)

13

Sample Size and Sampling Error

14

Measuring Drug Use

3 time horizons lifetime prevalence – at least once in a lifetime use in last 12 months – „recent use“ use in last 30 days – „current use“

Frequency & amount regular use: >10 times in last 30 days daily use, binge (party) consumption… problem(atic) drug use

other characteristics age at first use, route of administration… reasons for first use, context, source of drug

15

Substances Monitored Routinely

illicit drugs cannabis, ecstasy, hallucinogens (LSD), heroin and other opiates,

methamphetamine (pervitin) and amphetamines, cocaine, magic mushrooms…

licit drugs tobacco, alcohol used often as „warming-up“ questions

solvents/volatile substances

medicines on prescription (sedatives and tranquilizers) use without prescription

16

Drug Use in General Population

general population adult population

• standard age group 15-64 years

• young adults – aged 15-34 years

• very young adults – aged 15-24 years

school population

• standard 15-16 years – ESPAD

• European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs; coordinated by Swedish Council on Alcohol and Drugs and Pompidou Group of Council of Europe

• 11, 13, 15 years – HBSC

• Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children; coordinated by WHO

17

EMCDDA requirements – GPSs process (1)

CATEGORIES OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

National activities

Working group in place;

Organisation of national meetings by indicator

Respect of deadlines

Respect of deadlines as requested by the EMCDDA:a) On timeb) Within one month from deadlinesc) After one month from deadlines

Resources (staff, funding)

Staff directly dedicated to the indicator implementation at national level (full time equivalent)

Financial resources directly dedicated to the indicator implementation at national level

18

EMCDDA requirements – GPSs process (2)

CATEGORIES OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

Assessment of data quality

Existence of structured activities or system for the control of data quality

Legislation/Legal basis

Existence of a legal basis for data collection at national level (especially referred to indicators for which a routine national data colleciton system is required)

Existence of a National Plan to implement the Key Indicators

Progress on-going

Major progress obtained in the last 5 years

Major obstacles to the further the Key Indicator implementation

Recent efforts made to further implement the indicator

19

EMCDDA requirements – GPSs implementation (1)

CATEGORIES MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

DESIRABLE IMPLEMENTATION

Data availability at national level

- One GPS conducted at least in last 4 years- National coverage

- One GPS conducted in the last 2 years- National coverage

At least 3000 net response (number of actual respondants) in the age range 15-64

At least 5000 net sample (number of actual respondants) in the age range 15-64

At least 2 surveys conducted in the last 8 years

At least 4 surveys or more conducted in the last 8 years

The national survey is repeated at least once every 4 years

The national survey is repeated at least once every 2 years

20


CATEGORIES MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DESIRABLE IMPLEMENTATION

Harmonisation with EMCDDA guidelines

Compatibility with the basic core questions of the EMQ (prevalence information, frequency of use and year first use on illegal drugs)

Full compatibility with the EMQ

Reasonably probabilistic sample(e.g. based on households registries, with random selection of persons, without quotas)

Fully probabilistic sample (e.g. based on individuals based on exhaustive national population registry, without quotas and without replacement)

Method that allows reasonable privacy and confidentiallity at moment of data collection (e.g. paper and pencil self-completion of drug section)

Method that allows full privacy and confidentiality at moment of data collection (e.g. self-completion with CAPI, with interviewer assuring nobody of family is in the room )

21




TimelinessField work conducted 4 years before the reference year at most

Field work conducted 2 years before the reference year at most

Coverage

National coverage National with possible breakdown of results by regional levels with reasonable reliability

Data collected following EMCDDA standard age groups (at least for All Adults and Young Adults)

Data collected following all EMCDDA standard age groups (All Adults, Young Adults, 10 years groups)

Consistency

Existence of repeated national surveys with comparable methodology in the last 8 years

Existence of repeated national surveys with fully similar methodology in the last 8 years

At least 2 surveys in last 8 years


22

EMCDDA requirements – School surveys implementation (1)



Data availability at national level

- One school survey conducted at least in last 4

years- National coverage

- One school survey conducted at least in last 2

years- National coverage

2000 (for age group 15-16)4000 (if it is for wider

secondary school population)

- Taking account of size of the country-

4000 (for age group 15-16)8000 (if it is for wider

secondary school population)

- Taking account of size of the country-

At least 2 surveys conducted in the last 8

years

At least four surveys conducted in the last 8

years

At least every 4 years Every 2 years or annually

23




Harmonisation with EMCDDA

(at present there are no specific

EMCDDA guidelines)

Compatibility with core illegal drug

questions/items in EMQ and ESPAD

Full compatibility with EMQ -in the aspects that can be applied to school students-

and good level of compatibility with ESPAD

set of items for drugs

Reasonably probabilistic sample of secondary

schools existing in the country (without major

biases)

Fully probabilistic sample of the entire secondary

school system

24




TimelinessField work conducted 4

years before the reference year at most

Field work conducted two years or less before the

reference year

Coverage

National coverage National coverage with possible breakdown by

regional levels with reasonable reliability

15-16 years old Entire secondary school ages

Consistency

Repeated surveys with comparable methodology

in the last 8 years

Repeated surveys with fully comparable

methodology in the last 8 years



25

General (adult) population surveys in CR

Until 2002 „Attitudes and opinions of citizens“ by Public Opinion Research Centre (PORC) non-standardised questions (experience with „illicit drugs“)

2004 the first GPS focused on drugs with use of EMQ „General Population Survey on Health Status and Lifestyle of the

Population of the Czech Republic“ by Institute of Health Information and Statistics (IHIS)

2008 and 2012 repeated GPS on drugs using (extended) EMQ General Population Survey of the Use of Psychotropic Substances

and Attitudes Towards Drug Use in the Czech Republic (2008) National survey on addictive substances use 2012 by National monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction

26

General (adult) population surveys in CR (2)

From 2009 on set of standard essential questions on drug use (standard time

horizons, „standard“ drugs) in annual omnibus surveys National monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction: outsourced

data collection

Other studies Health studies of Institute of Health Information and Statistics

(IHIS)• regular Surveys on Health Status of the Population of the Czech Republic – HIS

CR (1993, 1996, 1999, 2002) and following

• European Core Health Interview Survey – EHIS (coordinated by Eurostat, 2008)

Prague Psychiatric Centre (PPC)• single studies and surveys on mental health, psychiatric illnesses, alcohol

consumption + incorporated questions on use of illicit substances

• GENACIS project (Gender, Alcohol and Culture International Study) - 2002

27

School surveys

ESPAD study – 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 since 2003 financed by the National monitoring centre for drugs and drug

addiction HBSC study – 2002, 2006, 2010

both by Prague Psychiatric Centre (PPC)

In past: Public Health Service

MAD study (Youth and Drugs) – 1994, 1997, 2000 ESPAD-like methodology, age group 14-18 years; 13 018 respondents in

2000

Institute of Psychology of Academy of Science NEAD study (Non-Alcohol Drugs) – ESPAD methodology, not national

coverage but some regions only SAHA study (Social and Health Assessment) - 2003

ESPAD survey in CR 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011

Number of respondents 2 962 3 579 3 172 3 901 3 913

28

GPS on drugs 2004

Survey of the Health Status and Lifestyle of the Population of the Czech Republic in 2004

The Institute for Health Information and Statistics (IHIS) in cooperation with NMC

Data collection by INRES-SONES Structured F2F, PAPI Q based on EMQ, the list of monitored psychoactive substances

was extended; closer attention was paid to pervitin, magic mushrooms and other natural hallucinogens, inhalants, and solvents

Age range 18-64 A random walk: stratified sampling by age, gender, region of

residence, and level of education Altogether 3,526 interviews were carried out (out of a total of 5,433

persons contacted). 1,766 males and 1,760 females years participated in the survey

Response rate 68.2%

29

GPS on drugs 2008

General Population Survey of the Use of Psychotropic Substances and Attitudes Towards Drug Use in the Czech Republic in 2008

NMC i cooperation with Centre of Addictology Data collection by INRES-SONES Age range 15-64 years, over-sampling of 15-29 years, weighted Two-stage sampling, a random walk as the last stage, quotas by

age, gender, education, region Gross sample size 5613 respondent, 4506 questionnaires collected,

i.e. response rate = 80,3% non-respondents: 1107 (aged 35-44 years), reasons: lack of time

(37%), lack of interest (31%), distrust, doubts about purpose of the study (13%) and information misuse (13%)

Questionnaire: EMQ + 3 modules, altogether >150 items Wording updated after pilot test (focus groups) and field testing 3 new modules

intensive use of cannabis (CAST) perceived availability of illicit drugs (EMCDDA) cannabis markets

30

CAST

Cannabis Abuse Screening Test 6 items enquiring whether a respondent had ever:

(1) used cannabis alone or (2) before midday (3) had memory problems as a result of cannabis use (4) been told by friends or family members to stop or reduce

their consumption of cannabis (5) tried to stop or reduce their cannabis use without success (6) had problems (at school, for example) because of their use

of cannabis When transformed and added up, all six variables constitute

the CAST scale with values ranging from 0 to 6: one point or none means a low risk 2 to 3 points imply a moderate risk 4 or more points suggest high-risk cannabis use requiring

professional intervention

31

GPS on drugs 2012 (1)

NMC Data collection by SCaC Age range 15-64 years, over-sampling of 15-34 years Multi-Stage Sampling

1st stage: municipalities and cities (23 strata by population size) 2nd stage: streets. Altogether 177 starting points (50 „backup“ starting

points) 3rd stage: selection of household by random walk according to specific

instructions.36 households on the list, every third household of every third object selected.

4th stage: respondents by Kish tables (12 types) Each „interviewer task“ consisted of 36 households

24 households for respondents aged 15-64 12 households for respondents aged 15-34

32

Kish tables

33


Gross sample size Basic sample – 4248 households Additional sample – 2124 households

Nett sample size: 2000 from the basic sample (670 aged 15-34 and 1330 aged 35-

64) 330 from the additional sample aged 15-34

Finally 2134 due to methanol intoxications (inclusion of additional module along with decreasing sample size)

Double data entry SPSS data format 3 weights: basic, oversampled, 15-34

34


EMQ-based Q intensive use of cannabis (CAST) perceived availability of illicit drugs reduced (EMCDDA) cannabis markets new drugs gambling module additional module on alcohol consumption and availability during

temporary prohibition

Pilot testing 5 interviewers, each 4 respondents

Cards with names of medical drugs (sedatives and analgesics)

Manual for interviewers

35


Time-schedule

Activity Date

Pilot testing 17-24.8.

Sample selection 17.-24.8.

Preparation of documentation 27.8-3.9.

Recruiting and training of interviewers 27.8.-22.9.

Data collection and supervision 7.9.-11.11.

Controls of interviewers 7.9.19.11.

Controls of questionnaires 24.9.-19.11.

Double data entry 1.10.-20.11.

Preparation of data file 21.11.-30.11.

36

Omnibus surveys Czech citizens

2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 PAPI, F2F in households 2184 persons contacted, 1802 respondents in 2012, Aged 15+ Quota sampling by gender, age and regions Omnibus with modules:

Health care, opinions on evolution and present state Health and care of own health, prevention Drug use (ours) plus demographic data

37

Omnibus survey by PPM Factum

2010, 2011, 2012 CAPI, F2F in households, without incentives for respondents 1000 respondents 15+ let Quota sampling by gender, age (15–29, 30–44, 45–59, 60+),

education (4 grades), size of residence (5 groups), regions(14) Selection up to interviewers by individual quota Omnibus with 4 modules:

Alcohol drinking habits Fuel customs Drug use (ours) Election preferences plus demographic data

Short questionnaire (16 minutes on average)

38

2008 story

Drug survey versus Health survey

39

2008 surveys

General Population Survey of the Use of Psychotropic Substances and Attitudes Towards Drug Use in the Czech Republic in 2008 15-64 years, over-sampling of 15-29 years, weighted A random walk: stratified sampling by age, gender, education,

region Gross sample size 5613 persons, 4506 respondents, i.e.

response rate = 80,3% EHIS 2008

15+ Two-stage sampling (310 municipalities, gross sample 4000

persons) 1995 respondents (response rate 50 %)

In principle the same questions asked

40

2008: Drugs versus Health - lifetime

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Any illicit drug Any illicit drugother thancannabis

Cannabis(marijuana and

hashish)

Ecstasy Pervitin (oramphetamine)

Cocaine Heroin LSD Magic mushrooms

%

Lifetime Drug Lifetime Health

41

2008: Drugs versus Health – 12 months

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0



hashish)



%

12 months Drug 12 months Health

42

2008: Drugs versus Health – 30 days

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0



hashish)



%

30 days Drug 30 days Health

43

2008: reasons for differences (1)

different formulations of questions and their context in the questionnaires (no effect – proven by subsequent survey)

varying data collection methodologies and procedures differences in the construction of samples lower degree of privacy in responding to questions in

health study lower response rate in health study sampling bias: individuals who could not be reached at

home probably more engaged in risk behaviours and may be assumed to show a higher level of drug use

the crucial role: context of questions (health versus drug)

44

2008: reasons for differences (2)

different context: personal interpretation of the question in view of the focus of research –

the respondent tends to adjust their answers according to what they think they are expected to report (for example, to lead a healthy lifestyle, to be “IN”);

the more elaborate questions asked in a monothematic drug survey – the respondent may be offered examples which help them recall their behaviour and specify what the question really means;

priming – respondents are better at recalling a topic to which they have been exposed over time;

a tendency to provide consistent responses, which may result in the underestimation of the prevalence of drug use in research concerned with health issues and, on the contrary, in the overestimation of prevalence rates in research studies focusing specifically on drugs;

social expectations which the focus of some research studies may, albeit involuntarily, arouse.

Škařupová, K. (2010) Health and Drug Surveys. Report for the EMCDDA. Unpublished.

45

Studies in Specific Groups

drug use in recreational settings Dance and Drugs 2003, 2007, 2010

• questionnaire filled in through website (www.drogy-info.cz)• 2 433 respondents, self-nomination technique in 2007• data collection June-September 2007

• prevalence of illicit drug use• alcohol consumption• assessment of risks related to drug use• problems experienced in connection with drug use• drug dealing• drugs and safe sex• drugs and driving

drug use in ethnic minorities very few data available

drug use among prisoners surveys in 2010 and 2012

http://www.drogy-info.cz/

46

Task Group

task group „Population and School Surveys on Drug Use“ – aims and results: exchange of information methodology consultations preparation of surveys Czech version of European Model Questionnaire minimum set of questions for GPS and school surveys feedback on chapter on Drug Use in Population of the Annual Report

members: conductors of surveys, representatives of research institutes (PPC, IHIS, CPOP, IPAS, Centre of Addictology), representative of agency doing field data collection (cca 10 people)

meetings 1-2 times per year• before GPS 2004 meetings 5 times per year – preparation of the

questionnaire, methodology, discussions on financing, sampling minutes of meetings are available on www.drogy-info.cz


47

Public opinion pools (up to 2002)

Lifetime use of illicit drug (%)

Year Yes No

1993 5 95

1994 7 93

1996 10 89

1997 11 89

1998 9 90

1999 10 89

2000 9 90

2001 14 85

2002 16 83

48

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

GENACIS 2002 GPS 2004 GPS 2008

Any illicit drug

Cannabis

Ecstasy

Magic Mushroom

LSD

Pervitin or amf.

Cocain

Heroin

Life time use Last year (recent) use

GPS: 2002-2008

15-64 or 18-64

49

GPS: 2002-2008

Cannabis use

21,1

10,9

20,6

10,9

4,8

15,3

4,62,1

34,5

15,3

8,5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

LTP LYP LMP LTP LYP LMP LTP LYP LMP LTP LYP LMP

2002 2004 2008 2008

GENACIS: alcoholsurvey (18-64)

GPS: health/drug survey(18-64)

ECHIS: health survey(15-64)

GPS: drug survey (15-64)

(%)

50

GPS: 2002-2008

Selected drugs among young adults (LYP)

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

%

Cannabis 22,1 19,3 27,1 32,0 28,2 35,5

XTC 5,9 7,7 7,8 10,8 12,0 11,7

(Meth)amphetamine 2,3 1,5 3,4 3,5 2,2 3,8

2002 (GENACIS) 2004 (CS 2004) 2008 (CS 2008) 2002 (GENACIS) 2004 (CS 2004) 2008 (CS 2008)

18-34 18-24

51

GPS 2008 (15-64)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ille

ga

l dru

g

Ille

ga

l dru

g o

the

rth

an

ca

nn

ab

is

Ca

nn

ab

is

XT

C

(Me

th)a

mp

he

tam

ine

Co

cain

e

He

roin

LS

D

Psi

locy

bin

e

(%)

LTP

LYP

LMP

52

GPS 2008 by gender

DrugLTP (%) LYP (%) LMP (%)

M F Total M F Total M F Total

Illegal drug 45,0 27,8 36,5 22,2 11,6 17,0 13,5 5,1 9,3

Illegal drug other than cannabis

21,3 11,6 16,5 9,8 4,7 7,3 4,1 1,7 2,9

Cannabis 42,5 26,0 34,3 20,1 10,1 15,2 12,4 4,6 8,5

XTC 11,9 7,3 9,6 4,8 2,6 3,6 1,5 0,9 1,2

(Meth)amphetamine 5,7 3,0 4,3 2,3 1,0 1,7 0,9 0,5 0,7

Cocaine 2,8 1,2 2,0 1,2 0,3 0,7 0,6 0,1 0,4

Heroin 1,7 0,5 1,1 0,7 0,2 0,4 0,3 0,0 0,1

LSD 7,8 3,4 5,6 2,8 1,4 2,1 0,9 0,6 0,7

Psilocybine 12,4 5,0 8,7 4,4 1,7 3,1 1,8 0,4 1,1

53

GPS 2008 by age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

%

15-24 58,7 20,8 7,3 2,8 1,8 15,4

25-34 49,9 17,1 8,5 4,2 2,2 12,9

35-44 32,4 6,1 3,7 1,3 0,6 8,5

45-54 19,8 2,3 1,3 1,1 0,6 4,2

55-64 9,3 1,0 0,5 0,5 0,2 1,9

Konopné látky ExtázePervitin/

amfetaminKokain Heroin Lysohlávky

54

GPS 2008: CAST results

% of persons who had used cannabis during the past 12 months

Level of risk

Gender (%) Age (%)

Total (%)

Males Females 15-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64

No or low risk 56.4 73.5 71.8 59.3 55.1 67.1 82.5 68.4 62.1

Moderate risk 30.0 17.1 24.4 27.3 30.6 19.7 12.5 10.5 25.7

High risk 13.6 9.5 3.8 13.4 14.4 13.2 5.0 21.1 12.2

55

GPS 2008-2011

Last year prevalence in adult population aged 15-64:

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Cannabis 15.2 11.1 10.4 9.7 8.3

Ecstasy 3.6 1.4 0.7 2.2 1.5

Pervitin 1.7 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.7

Cocaine 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6

2008 General Population Survey

(N=4200)

2009 Citizen Survey (N=1486)

2010 Citizen Survey (N=1487)

2010 Selected Aspects of Drug

Problematics

2011 Prevalence of Drug Use (N=893)

56

GPS 2008-2011

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Cannabis 28.4 21.6 20.7 20.3 16.1

Ecstasy 7.7 2.8 1.6 3.9 2.6

Pervitin 3.2 0.3 0.8 1.6 1.3

Cocaine 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.2

2008 General Population Survey

(n=1891)

2009 Citizen Survey (n=616)

2010 Citizen Survey (n=615)

2010 Selected Aspects of Drug

Problematics (n=674)

2011 Prevalence of Drug Use (n=339)

Last year prevalence in young adults aged 15-34:

57

Drug Use in Young Adults

%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

BelgiumBulgariaCzech RepublicDenmark

GermanyEstoniaIrelandGreeceSpainFrance

ItalyCyprusLatviaLithuaniaHungaryAustria

PolandPortugalNetherlandsSlovakiaFinland Sweden

UK (E&W)NorwayRomania

Likely declining trend however international comparison...

Last year prevalence in young adults aged 15-34:

58

ESPAD - LTP

21,8

0,2

1,8

1,7

2,4

10,8

7,6

2,2

34,6

3,4

5,5

4,4

5,4

17,7

7,2

2,0

43,6

8,3

4,2

2,4

5,6

7,9

11,1

9,0

1,1

45,1

4,6

3,5

2,0

5,0

7,4

9,1

7,0

4,3

42,3

3,3

2,0

1,4

5,1

6,9

10,1

7,8

1,4

0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0

Cannabis

Ecstasy

Pervitin or amphetamines

Heroin or opiates

LSD or hallucinogens

Magic mushrooms

Sedatives

Inhalants

Anabolic steroids

1995

1999

2003

2007

2011

59

Drug Use Among School Children

European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD)

Lifetime: Cannabis: 42%, ecstasy: 3%, pervitin: 2%, heroin: 1%, LSD: 5%, Magic mushrooms: 7%, sedatives: 10%, inhalants: 8%

6060

ESPAD (2011) Alcohol in the last 30 days

61

HBSC study 2002-2010: aged 15 years

0

10

20

30

40

2002 30.5 34.6 26.7 26.9 30.9 23.2

2006 24.8 27.3 22.3 19.2 20.3 18.2

2010 30.5 31.3 29.8 21.5 21.4 21.6 10.9 12.1 9.7

Total M F Total M F Total M F

LTP LYP LMP

cannabis (%)

62

Intensive / Harmful Use of Other Drugs

Drug Prevalence (%)Estimated No

of users95% CI

Sedatives 13,4 989 230 915 674 – 1 062 786

Cannabis 4,9 361 458 314 866 – 408 050

Ecstasy 0,5 35 716 20 734 – 50 697

Hall.mushrooms 0,4 31 231 17 217 – 45 244

LSD 0,3 22 465 10 573 – 34 358

Cocaine 0,2 13 928 4 559 – 23 297 1–1,5% of adult population in high risk of cannabis use, i.e. 75–110 th.

persons (CAST) 15–20% of adult population abuse alcohol, i.e. 990 th. - 1,4 mil. persons

(AUDIT) 0,7–2 % of adult population dependent on alcohol, i.e. 50–150 th. persons

(AUDIT)

General population survey 2008: at least once in the last month

63

Dance and Drugs 2007 lifetime prevalence of selected substances – general population 18-24

years (2004) compared to party goers 2003 and 2007

43,9

18,7

2,14,9 3,7

8,1

1,0

91,9

66,9

20,1

44,6 45,2 43,0

6,1

91,2

69,0

30,9

47,643,0

47,6

6,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cannabis Ecstasy Cocaine Pervitin LSD Magicmushrooms

Heroin

General population 18-24 years

Party goers 2003

Party goers 2007

6464

Drug use among prisoners 2010

Prior imprisonment: comparing with gen. population higher prevalence of drug use, esp. meth, heroin, cocaine

PDUs:10 – 25 % prisoners After imprisonment decrease of drug use (in

prisons mostly cannabis, meth, sedatives, heroin)

IDUs – 22 % 30 days prior imprisonment, 8 % in prisons

6565

General population versus prisoners (LYP)

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

GPS2008

VS2010

GPS2008

VS2010

GPS2008

VS2010

GPS2008

VS2010

GPS2008

VS2010

GPS2008

VS2010

GPS2008

VS2010

GPS2008

VS2010

GPS2008

VS2010

Jakákolivnelegální droga

Nelegální drogakromě konopné

drogy

Konopná droga Extáze Pervitin a jinéamfetaminy

Kokain Heroin LSD Halucinogenníhouby

Muži Ženy Celkem

Thank you

MUDr. Viktor MravčíkThe Czech National Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug [email protected]

www.drogy-info.czwww.focalpoint.czwww.vlada.czwww.emcdda.europa.eu

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.focalpoint.cz/

http://www.vlada.cz/

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/

drug use in general and school population : gpss and school surveys in the czech republic

Documents