Drug abuse in Pakistan - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

DRUG ABUSE IN PAKISTAN
(19 urban and 11 rural) and <strong>in</strong> NWFP 88 <strong>in</strong>terviews
were conducted <strong>in</strong> total (42 urban, and 46 rural). A
small number of <strong>in</strong>terviews (15) were conducted outside
of these prov<strong>in</strong>ces or had cod<strong>in</strong>g problems and
are therefore not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> a prov<strong>in</strong>cial analysis.
The sub-sample total for all prov<strong>in</strong>cial comparisons
is therefore 268. The reader should note that due to
sporadic miss<strong>in</strong>g values or non-response to <strong>in</strong>dividual
questions, the actual sub-sample numbers used
<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual comparisons will vary. The reader
should also note that due to round<strong>in</strong>g percentages
may not always exactly sum to 100.
In summary: the overall number of key <strong>in</strong>formants
<strong>in</strong>terviewed was 283,181 of whom were classified as
report<strong>in</strong>g from urban locales, and 101, from rural
locales, thereby giv<strong>in</strong>g a base of 282, for urban/rural
comparisons. A prov<strong>in</strong>cial breakdown was possible
for 268, <strong>in</strong>terviews and prov<strong>in</strong>cial comparisons are
correspond<strong>in</strong>gly based on this number. Sporadic
miss<strong>in</strong>g values, non-responses, and non-applicable
questions result <strong>in</strong> some variation <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual subsample
numbers used for comparisons.
In table 1 data are presented on the occupational
classification of the key <strong>in</strong>formants <strong>in</strong>terviewed for
this study. It was important to <strong>in</strong>terview key <strong>in</strong>formants
with a range of occupational backgrounds. The
study was successful <strong>in</strong> this respect. Furthermore,
the mix of occupational groups is broadly comparable
between the urban and rural samples. Some
m<strong>in</strong>or differences do exist <strong>in</strong> the samples. For example,
more medical personnel (21% of urban sample
versus 10% of the rural sample) were <strong>in</strong>terviewed <strong>in</strong>
urban sett<strong>in</strong>gs, probably reflect<strong>in</strong>g the disproportionate
location of medical facilities <strong>in</strong> urban areas,
and more religious leaders were <strong>in</strong>terviewed <strong>in</strong> rural
areas (9% of rural sample versus 3% of urban sample).
As key <strong>in</strong>formants were expected to comment on
trends over time it was desirable that they had longterm
local knowledge. For the majority of respondents
this was the case. On average, key <strong>in</strong>formants
had been liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> their locale for 24 years (28 years
for rural respondents and 21 for urban), with only a
small m<strong>in</strong>ority of either sample hav<strong>in</strong>g been resident
<strong>in</strong> the locale for less than 5 years (13%). This allows
for some confidence that the key <strong>in</strong>formants could
Table 1.
Key <strong>in</strong>formants’ occupational
groups
Local location
List of
occupational group Urban Rural Total
Medical 37 10 47
21% 10% 17%
NGO/Gov. 34 7 41
19% 7% 15%
Police 26 11 37
15% 11% 13%
Community leaders 5 7 12
3% 7% 4%
Ex-addict 17 10 27
10% 10% 10%
Teacher 10 7 17
6% 7% 6%
Welfare organization 13 5 18
7% 5% 7%
Local bus<strong>in</strong>ess 17 25 42
10% 26% 15%
Religious leader 6 9 15
3% 9% 5%
Other qualified workers 11 4 15
6% 4% 5%
Other 2 2 4
1% 2% 1%
Total 178 97 275
100% 100% 100%
comment with authority on longer-term changes <strong>in</strong>
local patterns and trends <strong>in</strong> drug <strong>abuse</strong>.
To comment accurately on patterns of drug <strong>abuse</strong>
with<strong>in</strong> the locale, it was also desirable that key
<strong>in</strong>formants had come <strong>in</strong>to contact <strong>in</strong> some way with
drug <strong>abuse</strong>rs <strong>in</strong> their local community. As noted
above, <strong>in</strong>terviewers were <strong>in</strong>structed where possible
to seek out such <strong>in</strong>dividuals for <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> the
sample. Encourag<strong>in</strong>gly, respondents reported considerable
contact with drug <strong>abuse</strong>rs. This question
was asked separately for all “drug <strong>abuse</strong>” and specifically
for “hero<strong>in</strong> <strong>abuse</strong> and drug <strong>in</strong>jection”. In the
12