Substance use by social workers and implications for professional regulation

IF 0.9 Q3 Psychology Drugs and Alcohol Today Pub Date : 2019-03-12 DOI:10.1108/DAT-08-2018-0040
N. Kiepek, Jonathan Harris, B. Beagan, Marisa Buchanan
{"title":"Substance use by social workers and implications for professional regulation","authors":"N. Kiepek, Jonathan Harris, B. Beagan, Marisa Buchanan","doi":"10.1108/DAT-08-2018-0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThe purpose of this paper is to explore the prevalence and patterns of substance use among Canadian social workers. With legalisation of can professional regulatory bodies are pressed to consider implications of substance use for their members. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nAn online survey collected data about demographics and substance use prevalence and patterns. Statistical analysis involved pairwise comparisons, binary logistic regression models and logistic regression models to explore correlations between substance use and demographic and work-related variables. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nAmong the respondents (n=489), findings indicate that past-year use of cannabis (24.1 per cent), cocaine (4.5 per cent), ecstasy (1.4 per cent), amphetamines (4.3 per cent), hallucinogens (2.4 per cent), opioid pain relievers (21.0 per cent) and alcohol (83.1 per cent) are higher than the general Canadian population. Years of work experience and working night shift were significant predictors of total number of substances used in the past year. Use of a substance by a person when they were a student was highly correlated with use when they were a professional. \n \n \n \n \nResearch limitations/implications \n \n \n \n \nPrevalence of substance use among social workers was found to be higher than the Canadian population; potential due to the anonymous nature of data collection. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nThis study has implications for social conceptualisations of professionalism and for decisions regarding professional regulation. Previous literature about substance use by professionals has focussed predominantly on implications for increased surveillance, monitoring, and disciplinary action. We contend that since substance use among professionals tends to be concealed, there may be exacerbated social misconceptions about degree of risk and when it is appropriate to intervene.","PeriodicalId":44780,"journal":{"name":"Drugs and Alcohol Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/DAT-08-2018-0040","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs and Alcohol Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/DAT-08-2018-0040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the prevalence and patterns of substance use among Canadian social workers. With legalisation of can professional regulatory bodies are pressed to consider implications of substance use for their members. Design/methodology/approach An online survey collected data about demographics and substance use prevalence and patterns. Statistical analysis involved pairwise comparisons, binary logistic regression models and logistic regression models to explore correlations between substance use and demographic and work-related variables. Findings Among the respondents (n=489), findings indicate that past-year use of cannabis (24.1 per cent), cocaine (4.5 per cent), ecstasy (1.4 per cent), amphetamines (4.3 per cent), hallucinogens (2.4 per cent), opioid pain relievers (21.0 per cent) and alcohol (83.1 per cent) are higher than the general Canadian population. Years of work experience and working night shift were significant predictors of total number of substances used in the past year. Use of a substance by a person when they were a student was highly correlated with use when they were a professional. Research limitations/implications Prevalence of substance use among social workers was found to be higher than the Canadian population; potential due to the anonymous nature of data collection. Originality/value This study has implications for social conceptualisations of professionalism and for decisions regarding professional regulation. Previous literature about substance use by professionals has focussed predominantly on implications for increased surveillance, monitoring, and disciplinary action. We contend that since substance use among professionals tends to be concealed, there may be exacerbated social misconceptions about degree of risk and when it is appropriate to intervene.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会工作者的物质使用及其对专业监管的影响
本文的目的是探讨加拿大社会工作者中物质使用的流行程度和模式。随着大麻的合法化,专业监管机构被迫考虑对其成员使用药物的影响。设计/方法/方法一项在线调查收集了有关人口统计和药物使用流行率和模式的数据。统计分析包括两两比较、二元逻辑回归模型和逻辑回归模型,以探讨物质使用与人口统计学和工作相关变量之间的相关性。在答复者(n=489)中,调查结果表明,过去一年使用大麻(24.1%)、可卡因(4.5%)、摇头丸(1.4%)、安非他明(4.3%)、致幻剂(2.4%)、类阿片止痛药(21.0%)和酒精(83.1%)的比例高于加拿大一般人口。工作经验年数和夜班工作是过去一年使用药物总数的重要预测因素。一个人在学生时期对某种物质的使用与他们成为专业人士时的使用高度相关。研究局限/影响发现社会工作者中药物使用的流行率高于加拿大人口;潜在的原因是数据收集的匿名性。独创性/价值本研究对专业主义的社会概念和有关专业规则的决策具有启示意义。以前关于专业人员物质使用的文献主要集中在增加监视、监测和纪律行动的影响上。我们认为,由于专业人员的物质使用往往是隐藏的,因此可能会加剧社会对风险程度和何时进行适当干预的误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Drugs and Alcohol Today
Drugs and Alcohol Today SUBSTANCE ABUSE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
The misuse of drugs act – a user perspective More harm than good? Cannabis, harm and the misuse of drugs act Risk perception, health stressors and reduction in sharing cannabis products during the COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-sectional study From law to regulation: re-appraising the misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Fifty years of the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: the legislative contexts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1