Methodological issues in workplace substance abuse prevention research

  • Rebekah K. Hersch
  • Royer F. Cook
  • Diane K. Deitz
  • James V. Trudeau


Substance abuse among working adults represents billions of dollars in preventable health care costs and industry financial loss. Therefore, it is imperative to develop and test effective substance abuse prevention programs for the workplace. However, applied workplace substance abuse prevention research is fraught with numerous methodological challenges. This article highlights a number of these challenges, which include (1) reaching a broad audience with prevention messages, (2) handling the concerns of the employer, (3) collecting substance use data in the workplace, (4) accessing and using records-based data, and (5) linking survey and records-based data. Using examples from the authors' ongoing research assessing a workplace health promotion and substance abuse prevention program, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, the authors address these challenges.


Substance Abuse Health Promotion Mental Health Service Health Care Cost Methodological Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Preliminary Estimates from the 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horgan C: Costs of untreated substance abuse to society.TIE Communique 1995; Spring/Special Issue:4–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoffman JP, Larison C, Sanderson A:An Analysis of Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and Programs. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)97-3142. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alleyne BC, Stuart P, Copes R: Alcohol and other drug use in occupational facilities.Journal of Occupational Medicine 1991; 3:496–500.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lehman W, Simpson D: Employee substance use and on-the-job behaviors.Journal of Applied Psychology 1992; 77:309–321.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moody DE, Crouch DJ, Andrenyak DM, et al.: Mandatory post-accident drug and alcohol testing for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). In: Gust SW, Walsh JM (Eds.):Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation. NIDA Research Monograph No. 100. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1990, pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Normand J, Salyards S, Mahoney JJ: An evaluation of pre-employment drug testing.Journal of Applied Psychology 1990; 75:629–639.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winkler H, Sheridan J:An Examination of Behavior Related to Drug Use at Georgia Power Company. Paper presented at the National Institute on Drug Abuse Conference on Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data, Bethesda, MD, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook RF: Drug abuse prevention in the workplace. In: Bukoski W, Sloboda Z (Eds.):Handbook of Drug Abuse Prevention Theory, Science and Practice. New York: Plenum, in press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cook RF, Back A:Say Yes! Healthy Choices for Feeling Good. Alexandria, VA: ISA Associates, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook RF, Back A:Working People: Decisions about Drinking. Alexandria, VA: ISA Associates, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cook RF, Back A:The Stress Management Connection, the Healthy Eating Connection, the Active Lifestyle Connection. Alexandria, VA: ISA Associates, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cook RF, Youngblood A: Preventing substance use as an integral part of worksite health promotion.Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews 1990; 5:725–738.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cook RF, Back A, Trudeau J: Substance abuse prevention in the workplace: Recent findings and an expanded conceptual model.Journal of Primary Prevention 1996; 16:319–338.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cook RF, Back AS, Trudeau J: Preventing alcohol use problems among blue-collar workers: A field test of the Working People program.Substance Use & Misuse 1996; 31:255–275.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bandura A:Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bandura A: Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In: Flavel J, Ross L (Eds.):Social Cognitive Development: Frontiers and Possible Futures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981, pp. 200–239.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sorensen G, Stoddard A, Peterson K, et al.: Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption through worksite and families in the Treatwell 5-a-Day study.American Journal of Public Health 1999; 89:54–60.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hersch RK, Cook RF:Substance Abuse Prevention in the Workplace. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, Nov. 17, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson JP:Occupational Classification System Manual. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cook RF, Bernstein A: Assessing drug use prevalence in the workplace: A comparison of self-report methods and urinalysis.International Journal of the Addictions 1994; 29:1057–1068.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cook RF, Bernstein AD, Arrington TL, et al.: A comparison of self-report, urinalysis and hair analysis.International Journal of the Addictions 1995; 30:326–403.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cook RF, Bernstein AD, Andrews CM: Assessing drug use in the workplace: A comparison of self-report, urinalysis and hair analysis. In: Harrison L, Hughes A (Eds.):The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of Survey Estimates. NIDA Research Monograph 167. NIH Pub. No. 96-4147. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1997, pp. 247–272.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cook RF, Hersch RK, McPherson TL: Drug assessment methods in the workplace. In: Mieczkowski T (Ed.):Drug Testing Technology: Assessment of Field Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1999, pp. 255–281.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kessler R, Nelson C, McGonagle K: The epidemiology of co-occurring addictive and mental disorders: Implications for prevention and service utilization.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1996; 66:17–31.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kessler R, McGonagle K: Lifetime and 12-month prevalence ofDSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States.Archives of General Psychiatry 1994; 51:8–18.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robins LN, Regier DA:Psychiatric Disorders in America: The Epidemiological Catchment Area Study. New York: Free Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murray DM:Design and Analysis of Group-Randomized Trials. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ellickson PL, Hawes JA: An assessment of active versus passive methods for obtaining parental consent.Evaluation Review 1989; 13:45–55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavioral Healthcare Management 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebekah K. Hersch
    • 1
  • Royer F. Cook
    • 1
  • Diane K. Deitz
    • 1
  • James V. Trudeau
    • 1
  1. 1.ISA Associates, Inc.Alexandria

Personalised recommendations