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

LAA

G ..

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

HO

OG

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

LAA

G ..

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

HO

OG

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)