Use of Vignettes in Qualitative Research on Drug Use: Scoping Review and Case Example from Brazil

  • Jaqueline Queiroz de Macedo
  • Nazilla Khanlou
  • Margarita Antonia Villar Luis
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the use of vignettes, a research method used to explore sensitive issues in studies on drug use. First aim, to explore available literature on the use of vignettes in examining the phenomenon of drug use; Second, to illustrate the actual use of a vignette to capture the experiences of teachers in a school setting in Brazil. This we propose to do by applying Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review technique. Twenty-six qualitative studies were found that met the reviews inclusion and exclusion criteria. Across studies, the vignette technique as a method of data collection was applied in different aspects of drug use (education and training, ethics in research, identification of risk, HIV, prevention, public conceptions, religion, rape, social policy, treatment). The main reasons to use this method were related, but not limited to the sensitive area of drug use, to stimulate discussion, to get participants involved, and to maintain confidentiality. In nursing practice, vignettes can make it easier to the patient to address drug use’s topics in group and individually. With the use of the vignette technique, qualitative researchers can increase the possibility of discussion about drug use with the participants, based on their choices and reflection on the scenario.

Keywords

Addiction Qualitative methodology Vignette technique Scoping review Substance Abuse School and education 

References

  1. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology Theory and Practice, 8(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babor, T. F., Caulkins, J., Edwards, G., Fischer, B., Foxcroft, D., Humphreys, K., Obot, I., et al. (2010). Drug policy and the public good (p. 352). Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  3. Baldacchino, A. (2007). Co-morbid substance misuse and mental health problems: policy and practice in Scotland. The American Journal on Addictions, 16(3), 147–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briceño-León, R. (2005). Urban violence and public health in Latin America: a sociological explanatory framework. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 21(6), 1629–1648.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlini, E. A., Noto, A. N., Sanchez, Z. V. M., et al. (2010). VI Levantamento Nacional sobre o Consumo de Drogas Psicotrópicas entre Estudantes do Ensino Fundamental e Médio das Redes Pública e Privada de Ensino nas 27 Capitais Brasileiras – 2010. São Paulo: CEBRID, UNIFESP, SENAD.Google Scholar
  6. CICAD. (2010). Report on Drug Use in the Americas. Report, OAS/OEA.Google Scholar
  7. Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., & Hayter, M. (2014). Qualitative research: quality results? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(4), 711–713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coker, E. M. (2005). Selfhood and social distance: toward a cultural understanding of psychiatric stigma in Egypt. Social Science & Medicine, 61(5), 920–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egerer, M. (2012). Alcoholism, brief intervention and the institutional context: a focus-group study with French and Finnish general practitioners. Critical Public Health, 22(3), 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finch, J. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21(1), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer, J., Neale, J., Bloor, M., & Jenkins, N. (2008). Conflict and user involvement in drug misuse treatment decision-making: a qualitative study. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 3(21), 1–11.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, C. B., Oransky, M., Mahadevan, M., Singer, M., Mirhej, G., & Hodge, D. (2008). Marginalized populations and drug addiction research: realism, mistrust, and misconception. IRB Ethics & Human Research, 30(3), 1–9.Google Scholar
  13. Ford, R. (2011). Interpersonal challenges as a constraint on care: the experience of nurses’ care of patients who use illicit drugs. Contemporary Nurse, 37(2), 241–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galvani, S., Dance, C., & Hutchinson, A. (2013). Substance use training experiences and needs: findings from a national survey of social care professionals in England. Social Work Education, 32(7), 888–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gunby, C., Carline, A., & Beynon, C. (2013). Regretting it after? Focus group perspectives on alcohol consumption, nonconsensual sex and false allegations of rape. Social and Legal Studies, 22(1), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes, R. (1998). Considering the vignette technique and its application to a study of drug injecting and HIV risk and safer behaviour. Sociology of Health and Illness, 20(3), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes, R. (2000a). Illicit drug injectors’ strategies for cleaning needles and syringes: findings from qualitative research. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 28(2), 158–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes, R. (2000b). ‘Friendships are a big part of it’: social relationships, social distance, and HIV risks. Substance Use and Misuse, 35(9), 1149–1176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hughes, R. A. (2000c). Drug injectors and the cleaning of needles and syringes. European Addiction Research, 6(1), 20–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hughes, R. A. (2000d). Drug Injectors and prison mandatory drug testing. Howard J Criminal Justice, 39(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes, R. A. (2001a). Assessing the influence of need to inject and drug withdrawal on drug injectors’ perceptions of HIV risk behavior. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 33(2), 185–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes, R. A. (2001b). The lives of drug injectors and English social policy. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 13(2), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes, R. (2002). ‘Getting checked and having the test’: drug injectors’ perceptions of HIV testing-findings from qualitative research conducted in England. European Addiction Research, 8(2), 94–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hughes, R. A. (2004). “When you’re using gear you put HIV to the back of your mind and forget about it”: Constructs of risk. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 36(3), 357–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirby, A., & Jacobson, J. (2014). Public attitudes to the sentencing of drug offences. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 14(3), 334–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macedo, J.Q., & Luis M.A.V. (2015). Participatory methodology with educators: preventing the consumption of psychoactive drugs in schools. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto. Google Scholar
  28. Miller, P. G. (2001). Needle and syringe provision and disposal in an Australian regional centre. Drug and Alcohol Review, 20(4), 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nabors, L. A., Brubaker, M. D., Hoffman, S., Shipley, H., Pangallo, J., & Strong, A. (2012). Young adults‘ perceptions of an adolescent’s use of marijuana and alcohol. Journal of Drug Education, 42(4), 413–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neale, J., Allen, D., & Coombes, L. (2005). Qualitative research methods within the addictions. Addiction, 100(11), 1584–1593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Okamoto, S. K., Helm, S., McClain, L. L., & Dinson, A. L. (2012). The development of videos in culturally grounded drug prevention for rural native Hawaiian youth. Journal of Primary Prevention, 33, 259–269.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oransky, M., Fisher, C. B., Mahadevan, M., & Singer, M. (2009). Barriers and opportunities for recruitment for nonintervention studies on HIV risk: perspectives of street drug users. Substance Use and Misuse, 44(11), 1642–1659.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Park, E. R., Kleimann, S., Youatt, E. J., et al. (2011). Black and white adults’ perspectives on the genetics of nicotine addiction susceptibility. Addictive Behaviors, 36(7), 769–772.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rashid, S., Copello, A., & Birchwood, M. (2012). Muslim faith healers’ views on substance misuse and psychosis. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 15(6), 653–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shucksmith, J., & Wood, S. (1998). Keep a cool head: drug education in primary schools. Health Education, 98(5), 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sinclair, J. M. A., Burtonb, A., Ashcroftc, R., & Priebe, S. (2011). Clinician and service user perceptions of implewmenting contingency management: a focus group study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 119(1–2), 56–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Söderström, K. (2012). Mental preparation during pregnancy in women with substance addiction: a qualitative interview-study. Child and Family Social Work, 17(4), 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UNODC. (2011). World Drug Report 2011. Report, United Nations.Google Scholar
  39. UNODC. (2013). World Drug Report 2013. Report, United Nations.Google Scholar
  40. UNODC. (2014). Information about drugs. Available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/illicit-drugs/definitions/ (accessed: 9 May 2014).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaqueline Queiroz de Macedo
    • 1
  • Nazilla Khanlou
    • 2
  • Margarita Antonia Villar Luis
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Nursing at Ribeirao PretoUniversity of Sao PauloRibeirao PretoBrazil
  2. 2.Women’s Health Research Chair in Mental Health, Faculty of HealthYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations