Thisessay is a critique of Jadranka Ivandi´c Zimi´c & VladoJuki´c’s article, Familial Risk FactorsFavoringDrug Addiction Onset .
Thestudy seeks to establish familial risk factors favoring drugaddiction onset. The main goals of the researchers were “toidentify possible differences between addicts’ and non addicts’families in terms of developmental, interaction and social factors,so as to be able to ultimately identify familial risk factorsfavoring drug addiction onset” (Jadranka & Jukiz, 2012p.177). From background information, the authors were able to come upwith a set of hypotheses explaining the likelihood of addiction andonset of addiction among children. The two hypotheses that clearlyemerge from the background of the current study as outlined byJadranka & Jukiz (2012) include:
Alcohol abuse by parents especially by the father can lead to issues in children including behavior problems, delinquency, school issues or school quitting, toxicomania and issues psychological nature like anxiety, depression and sleep disorder.
Poor interparental relationships negatively influence a child’s psychological development as marital conflicts are associated with child’s inability to social adjustment and his/her hostile upbringing is later related to risky behavior patterns such as addictive substance use.
Consequently,the authors have done a comprehensive literature review on the topic.They have used various studies from other scholars regarding the sameissue. Most of the sources or reviewed literature entail journalsthat were published within the last decade. A clear balance of theprevious knowledge on the issue and the current problem underinvestigation is evident in the essay. As established, the authorsbase their hypothesis from the past studies that they have analyzedother works to guide them in the current study. There is no apparentbias in the literature review conducted in this article. This isevidently in the sources used which are largely diversified in viewson drug addiction and onset. The authors are very keen not to limittheir review to familial risk factors, or bias their review ofliterature to their research goals. They have clearly stated that,other than familial factors, social cultural as well as developmentalfactors can contribute to addiction and onset of addiction(Jadranka & Jukiz, 2012).  These other factors havebeen discussed extensively in the literature a factor that gives thecurrent article a broader view of the issue. this was also useful inhelping the authors reach a conclusion, as they bore in mind that,apart from familial relations, interaction, developmental,sociological theories have been linked to onset of drug and drugaddiction.
Thecurrent study uses experimental research design. The study uses twogroups the study group and a control group not hooked to drugs,alcohol or any other addictive substances. The current study employedquantitative study approach. Quantitativeresearch method mainly seeks to calculate data and generalize resultsobtained from a sample representing the population underinvestigation. (Lucas, Baird, Arai, Law, & Roberts, 2007)
Theparticipants included the experimental group and the control group.The experimental group or the addict group comprised of 146 addicts(92 male, 51 female and 3 did not disclose their gender). They wereaged between 18 and 46 years, with majority of them being between 23and 28 years. The median age was 28.18 for this particular group. Theparticipants were selected while undergoing therapy at PsychiatricHospital Vrapce or at Clinical Hospital “Sisters of Mercy” atZagreb. The control group was made up of 134 participants, who at thetime of the study did not have addiction issues (Jadranka &Jukiz, 2012). The population included 88 male, 45 female and oneindividual who declined to state hig gender affiliation. the ageranged from 17-44 years with the median age being 27.13. Thecriterion used in selecting the control group was mainly to match thegroup’s sociodemographics to the addict group including age,educational background, birth place, residential place and sex. Thecontrol group was included staff of the psychiatric hospital Vrapceand the clinical hospital “Sisters of Mercy”, staff from StateAdministration and Public Services, students as well as unemployedindividuals.
Datacollection method determines the result of the study. The choice ofdata collection method is also dependent on the type of study. Datawas collected using anonymous, 67 variable questionnaires.Questionnaires were provided directly by the researcher to theparticipant. The questionnaires were structured with mostlyqualitative questions guiding the respondent to tick the appropriateanswer. Qualitative study is important in understanding humanbehavior (Bryman, 2006). In addition, it included an “other”option, which allowed the respondent to write in their own words whatthey felt was not included in the predetermined responses. This useof qualitative and quantitative data collection has been advocated byOstlund,Kidd, Wengstr & Rowa-Dewar (2011).
Onemajor assumption made by the researcher is that, the educationdisparity between the addict and the control group has no influenceon the outcome of the study. According to the researchers, the onsetof drug addiction is usually between early adolescence 13-15 years,where education cannot be termed as significant (Jadranka &Jukiz, 2012). Rather than quantitative design emphasized in thisstudy, the researchers would have applied qualitative approach tohelp in data analysis. This would have given a lot of significance tothe study (Liamputtong et al., 2009).
Thecollected data was analyzed quantitatively using SPSS statisticalsoftware. Descriptive and parametric statistics was mainly used fordata analysis. Variables descriptive of the two mutually comparableaddict and the non addict groups were correlated to each other. Grouping of the various aspects investigated by the researchersincluding familial aspects, interaction aspects and social aspectswas done.
Thequestion answered in the descrive way in the “other” categorywere analyzed by the researchers and grouped into three categoriesnegative, positive, and neutral. The study should have employed bothqualitative and qunatitative design. This is because, they are usefulin bringing out the best out of a study. As argued by Crowe &Sheppard (2010), the two approaches are more similar than differentand are used to supplement and not replace the other.
Ethicalprinciples in research of social sciences entail aspects such asbeing conscious of multiple roles of the subjects and utmost respectfor confidentiality and privacy, disclosure of voluntaryparticipation and the induction of sufficient educative value are theethical principles. Inthis study, ethical principles were fully complied with.Participation in this study was voluntary. Those addicts who did notfind it appropriate to participate were not coerced or forced toparticipate. The participants were notified, informed on the researchprocess and the purpose of the study. In addition, the researcherassured the respondents on the anonymity of information given inquestionnaires. As such, questionnaires did not ask the participantfor personal data such as name or date of birth, except for the yearof birth. for addicts, a letter guaranteeing confidentiality wasprovided.
Theresearchers sought permission to carry on with their study from theBoard of Ethics at the University of Medicine in Zagreb as well asthe Board of Ethics of Hospital Vrapce and CHC Sisters of Mercy.
Researcherspersonally delivered the questionnaires to the non addict (controlgroup) explaining orally and through an explanatory cover letterregarding the study.
Everyresearch study must be able to present data in a manner that thereader is able to understand. the results of the study are in factthe main aim of carrying out a study, as they help in makingconclusions. in the current research, Jadranka & Jukiz (2012)classified their findings in four main categories. Familialsociodemographic features, familial developmental features, familialsociological features, and familial interaction features. The resultsdid not show any statistically significant variations in sociodemographic profile of the addicts’ and non-addicts’ immediatefamilies. However, there was statistically significant differencebetween the trow groups in relation to familial developmentalfeatures. In addition, there was significant difference in familialinteraction features between the addict and control group,particularly in communication and emotional relations.  Finally,results regarding familial sociological features showed that the mostsignificant difference between the addicts and non addicts is presentin sociopathology. Unlike with non-addicts’ families, families ofaddicts had to deal with mental disorders and alcohol abuse.
Theauthors have not presented their results separately from theanalysis. In fact the results and analysis are provided together. Inthis way, it is easier for the reader to comprehend the results ofthe study. The author provides the results both in a quantifiable anddescriptive way.
Thediscussion and conclusion is usually the last part of a research. inthis section, the authors summarize the findings of their studies andcomparing them with other studies. In this article, the authors havebeen able to provide a clear review of the results and the way theyfulfil the study’s objective. The authors have also linked theirfindings with the works of other scholars. majorly, as established inthe background of the study, the current study findings conform tothe previous work. in the discussion, the authors show how thecurrent study will aid in future studies. Particularly, theimportance of this study in guiding further investigation intofamilial risk factors influencing drug addiction onset, and inshaping the guideline for establishment of comprehensive preventiveprograms directed towards children and adolescents from riskyfamilial background (Jadranka & Jukiz, 2012). There is needfor further investigation into familial relations and familystructures of addicts and the need for holistic approach designed notonly for an addict, but their family as a whole as the family plays asignificant role in addiction onset as well as prevention andtreatment.
Bryman,A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how isit done? QualitativeResearch, 6(1), 97–113.
Crowe,M. & Sheppard, L. (2010). Qualitative and quantitative researchdesigns are more similar than different. InternetJournal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 8,1–6.
Jadranka,I.Z.  & Jukiz, V. (2012). FamilialRisk Factors Favoring Drug Addiction Onset. Journal of PsychoactiveDrugs, 44 (2),173–185.
Liamputtong,P. et al. (2009). Qualitativeresearch methods. Australia:Oxford University Press.
Lucas,P. J., Baird, J., Arai, L., Law, C. & Roberts, H. M. (2007).Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis ofqualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMCMedical Research Methodology, 7(1), 4.
Ostlund,U., Kidd, L., Wengstr Y. & Rowa-Dewar, N. (2011). Combiningqualitative and quantitative research within mixed method researchdesigns: a methodological review. InternationalJournal of Nursing Studies, 48(3), 369–383.