Case Studies On Heroin
Introduction: Throughout this essay I will be researching two case studies as it relates to heroin abuse. The first study I will research is a study titled “Patient perspective transitions from prescription opioids to heroin” conducted by Shannon Mitchell, and Laura Monico. The second case study I will be researching is a study conducted by well known professors from the University of Louisville by the names Anthony Vito and another Schaefer.
Description of Study One: This study was conducted by Mitchell and Monico to get results to the problem of individuals using heroin after use of prescription drugs. Their study included interviews from 20 patients over a period of 6 months between late 2014 and early 2015.
The patients included in the study were white males over the age of 18. The purpose of their study was solely to “use qualitative interview data from participants in treatment programs by exploring certain factors associated with them” (Monico and Michell, 2018, p. 2). It is important to know how their participants were recruited. “Participants were recruited during day time hours, and at centers where research was being conducted” (Monico & Mitchell, 2018, p. 2). The main question asked during interviews was “How long has it been since last used prescription drugs, the way they took the prescription drugs, rather it been smoked, injected, or snorted?”, also “how often they used heroin?, as well as who encouraged the behavior and the method used to do heroin?”. According to this study, the results were that 14 out of the 20 individuals interviewed started using prescription drugs before heroin. From that 14, 12 used heroin. Part of the 12 injected heroin, while the others snorted it. During the time of the interviews participants thought the price of heroin to be less expensive then prescription drugs which ultimately turned out to not be true. “Respondents found that the maintenance of a heroin addict, is much more costly in heroin then in prescription drugs” (Monico & Mitchell, 2018, p. 3-4). It is important to know that sadly each of these interviewees were influenced by other individuals to use heroin. “Some said it was cheaper, some said it was better, and would even get them higher” (Monico & Mitchell, 2018, p. 3).
The study also found that heroin was snorted and injected largely by individuals who first used prescription drugs. A participant named Julie found the effects to be more effective when injected directly into the bloodstream then snorting. As stated in the study “Injection is much more effective, as it goes directly into the veins, whereas snorting would take hours to be effective” (Monico & Mitchell, 2018, p. 6). This study concluded that people use heroin largely because it is cheaper than prescription drugs and was much more effective in terms of use. Limitations: There were many problems with this study. Some problems that existed, was that the sample did not effectively point out the maximum population of heroin users. The study is not well represented and is selective from only one program. There were users that were not included for whatever reason, those users are transient users, homeless users and individuals in jails and prisons. With the study being qualitative there was no analysis because there was no comprehensive data and/ or specific variables. The information from the individuals could have also been false which lead to incorrect studies. The data should have used the quantitative method in terms of cause and effect rather than qualitative. The sample was small and were all volunteer subjects so the results cannot be generalized by other locations.
Theory: Based on this study, I believe it relates to the social learning theory. The outliners of social learning theory is reinforcement, differential association, and imitation. With the individuals behavior in use of heroin as being influenced by peers I felt social learning theory could best explain it. Individuals that used heroin found their use in heroin to be a positive reinforcement. Every individual was encouraged at some point to use heroin because of what a friend or acquaintance said about its cost and the effects which was positive. It is positive because it is learned behavior from others which directly links to this situation. Different association is another theory explainable to this type of use because it states the ideal of behavior being “learned through interactions with others” (HRF, 2017, p. 1).
Description of Study #2
In this study, two individuals named Vito and Schaefer examined results from a study. They conducted the works of Ronald Akers, and how his study linked to the use of heroin. Akers concluded that “Behavior of individuals is based on outside behavioral influences” (Vito and Schaefer, 2015, p. 2). With this statement there was a belief that behavior was influenced by peers, believed in behavior that was likeliness of being favored, if favored then others would be influenced and the person would follow that behavior. Testing Akers study, Schaefer and Vito conducted a survey using data from a 2011 monitoring the Future (MTF), survey in which consisted of just about 2,300 people starting from ages 12 and over. The question that was asked was “whether respondents used heroin in the past year, those responses were marked using a simple Yes or No” (Schaefer and Vito, 2015, p. 105). They also asked a question of “Indicate the behavior of peers, on a scale 1-5, 5 being the highest” (Schaefer and Vito, 2015, p. 106). The lower the number chosen the more likely the risk of use in heroin and the higher the number chose the least likely the risk of heroin use. They also conducted study based on race. Control measures and social structures were also conducted. The results of the study indicated less than 2% of the study used heroin in the past year (Schaefer and Vito, 2015, p. 7). The hard drugs as mentioned by Akers in his study are heroin of course, sedatives, pain relievers, crack and inhalants” (Schaefer and Vito, 2015, p. 7). Through these facts from the study regrading respondents, reasons for heroin use “It was found that there was a mean of 6. 53 non social enforcement, 2. 88 peer association hard drug use, and a 4. 97 means as far as definitions” (Schaefer and Vito, 2015, p. 7). It was seen to be more effective than punishable in the use of hard drugs. Peers doing hard drugs, and heroin had large impacts on individuals conducted in the study doing them as a result of learned behavior. Non-White males over the age of 18 made up the majority of the respondents.
LIMITATIONS: One main problem of this study is that it only looked at individuals age 12 and older. The study had self-report surveys where individuals can absolutely put anything to complete it, which can be false and lead to mislead data. Homeless, transient, jail and prison individuals were not included, which are people more likely to use heroin than the sample that was included. The study had a low rate of only 2% from the results of samples which is terribly low. The study only looked at race, age, and bio sex which was not a strong indication that social structure increased use of heroin. Many other variables that could have predicted heroin use were excluded. Lastly, the study did not measure all aspects of social structure.
Theory: Social Learning theory in my opinion best explains this study. With individuals finding reward in there behavior and feeling as there behavior is desirable this is definitely a good theory for it. The individuals who largely stated that they did not gain their behaviors from others were the main ones engaging in this type of behavior. “I like engaging in what I engage in, it lifts me up” (Schaefer and Vito, 2015, p. 106). Sutherland description of differential association explained crime being a learned behavior through 9 propositions. That being that people learn their motives, values, techniques, and also attitudes through interacting with other individuals. That being said this also relates to the theory by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi which was largely known. That theory is the Self-control theory which has “Negative impacts on the person, and does acts in the favor of longer term interests” (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 2017. P. 1). Individuals who learn Self-control from parents may not engage in deviant activity, however those who do not will in which relates to this study. Practically, meaning if you learn the proper behavior from parents and peers then you will act appropriate and not engage in this type of deviant behavior.
