Timeliness of data collection and interpretation of
emerging trends
Dirk J. KorfEMCDDA, Scientific Committee
17-18 November 2008
KEY QUESTIONS
• With what means can the standard reporting cycle be complemented?
• Which alternative possibilities are there to obtain more recent data?
• How can we access additional qualitative information?
• How could an exchange of information be organised?
STANDARD REPORTING CYCLE I
• All indicators have limitations– Under-representation of relevant groups
(heavy users in general population; school drop outs in ESPAD)
– Trends in data might predominantly reflect policy (drug law offences, seizures, treatment demand)
• Annual data collection not always realistic– Costs: General Population Surveys
STANDARD REPORTING CYCLE II
• Last passenger delays the flight– Positive and/or negative reinforcement?– Stick to time schedule or wait till last one is in?
• Focus on most relevant data– Less = better– Required completeness -> less motivation,
more frustration• Balance innovation with
consolidation of standard procedures – Respect big differences between member
states (experienced vs. newcomers)
MEANS TO COMPLEMENT
• Triangulation -> fuller picture and might help to fill gaps and explain contradictions– Parallel trends in data do not automatically prove
trends in use (i.e. arrests and treatment)
• Contrast analysis: compare countries with diverging trends
• Add: information to explain trends– Policy changes, new treatment– Changes in lifestyle, attitudes, etc.– BE SELECTIVE: DON’T ASK TOO MUCH EVERY YEAR
OBTAINING MORE RECENT DATA
• Focus on LYP, LMP and incidence• Selection of countries: trend
setters, early observers• Or: selection of cities / regions
– Antenna like projects in various cities• Focus on specific groups
– High prevalence groups, for example young adults, party visitors …
0
1
2
3
4
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
LA
AG
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
... H
OO
G
XTC
COCAÏNE
AMFETAMINE
Poly. (XTC)
Poly.(COCAÏNE)
Poly.(AMFETAMINE)
0
1
2
3
4
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
LA
AG
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
... H
OO
G
LACHGAS
GHB
Ketamine
Ton Nabben & Sanna Koet
PRESENTATIE RESULTATEN
Horizontal & vertical trends
• Vertical: Trend followers become part of developments initiated by trendsetters; drugs spread over other scenes.
• Horizontal: New developments spread from centre of innovation to other parts of the country
Vertical: Drug use and scene in NL
Vertical: Dynamics in drug use & scene
Horizontal: Amphetamine
• Horizontal and some vertical spread.
• Rural vs. urban.• Most popular in
Underground en Hardcore scene.
• Prevention:– Revival of
appreciation speed to reduce alcohol effects
– Users under estimate risks
Ecstasy & Cocaine
GHB & Ketamine
ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL QUALITATIVE INFO
• Ideally through Focal Points– Ideological conflicts (qualitative is not scientific; vs.
ethno-epidemiology); separate schools; isolated FPs
• Networks of qualitative researchers
• Qualitative journals– New Journals (Cultural Criminology)– Students at EMCDDA
ORGANISING EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
• Facilitate working groups, seminars with grass root researchers (maybe not through FPs?)
• Be topical, focus on specific issues, be selective: only real experts (vs. all member states should be represented)
Top Related