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

DRUG ABUSE IN PAKISTAN
Table 23.
Locales used <strong>in</strong> the key <strong>in</strong>formant study component
Key <strong>in</strong>formant study (urban)
Key <strong>in</strong>formant study (rural)
Study Urban locale No. of key Rural pair<strong>in</strong>g No. of key
Prov<strong>in</strong>ce ID No. (districts) <strong>in</strong>formant <strong>in</strong>terviews locale <strong>in</strong>formant <strong>in</strong>terviews
Punjab 7 Lahore 22 Kanna 3
6 Multan 10 Mattial 5
10 Rawalp<strong>in</strong>di 12 Dahmial 3
8 Sialkot 10 Rangpura 6
9 Faislabad 11 Jaranwalla 4
S<strong>in</strong>dh 3 Karachi 20 Malir 5
4 Hyderabad 14 Tando Allah Yar 5
5 Sukkar 15 Abad Jageer 5
Balochistan 2 Quetta 13 Kachlaq 5
1 Turbat 6 Godaan 6
NWFP 12 Peshawar 10 Bad Bair Village 5
14 Bannu 5 Mandan 5
13 Maradan 5 Tahkat Bai 2
17 Chitral 5 Garrama Chasma 5
15 Dir 7 Rural Timergrah 5
16 Gilgit 3 Ghaok Gaza 5
18 Haripur 7 Rehana 6
(FATA)* 20 Mohmand Agency 5
21 Khyber Agency Ladi Kotal 5
Totals 175 90
*For prevalence estimation purposes FATA is <strong>in</strong>corporated with NWFP.
In any given survey, deriv<strong>in</strong>g the requisite <strong>in</strong>formation
requires methods suited to and adapted to the
social and geographical structures of the country at
that time. Precise operational def<strong>in</strong>itions implemented
<strong>in</strong> the survey need to be tailored to the available
<strong>in</strong>formation and data collection possibilities.
The immediate steps <strong>in</strong> provid<strong>in</strong>g a prevalence estimate
<strong>in</strong> the <strong>Pakistan</strong> National Survey are therefore
as follows.
Estimat<strong>in</strong>g the number of addicts
<strong>in</strong> treatment
Data from the Treatment Register Update study were
used to determ<strong>in</strong>e the number of addicts receiv<strong>in</strong>g
treatment over the 12 months prior to the survey.
This figure was restricted to those addicts undergo<strong>in</strong>g
<strong>in</strong>patient treatment <strong>in</strong> specialist drug cl<strong>in</strong>ics,
and this decision was made for two reasons. Firstly,
it provided a clearer focus for determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the nature
of the drug addiction for which the person was be<strong>in</strong>g
treated, and so allowed a more accurate def<strong>in</strong>ition
of the target group of addicts to be implemented,
than would be the case had broader general health
sett<strong>in</strong>gs for treatment been <strong>in</strong>cluded. Secondly, the
enumeration of all addicts treated at specialist units
over the 12 months is more accurately and more
easily carried out than could be the case <strong>in</strong> more
broadly def<strong>in</strong>ed and more widespread health treatment
sett<strong>in</strong>gs.
Although therefore some addict treatment episodes
are not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the figure, this shortfall can be
corrected at the second stage of the calculation. In
determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the number of addicts so treated, the
dist<strong>in</strong>ction has been made between the number of
treatment episodes and the underly<strong>in</strong>g number of
50