Scale-Up Methods as Applied to Estimates of Heroin use

The feasibility of using the network scale-up method to estimate heroin use is described. A random sample was asked “How many people do you personally know” who use heroin, and how many in other subpopulations – robbery, assault, burglary, auto-theft victims, binge drinkers, and marijuana users – whose size is more accurately known. A model estimated the overall number of persons each respondent knew and the size of each subpopulation. Estimates of the subpopulation are compared with known subpopulation sizes to assess the plausibility of the model. Data came from the 1999 survey evaluating the “Fighting Back” substance prevention program. Fourteen sites with clear political boundaries were used (n = 5892). Heroin use varied from city to city. Rates estimated for heroin use correlated .832 with the level of respondents' sense of “crime in their neighborhood.” The average ratio between the known populations and the estimates is .943. Members of each subpopulation, especially drug users, tended to know more people within their own subpopulation.

[1]  T. Caplow.  The case of the Phantom episcopalians : Church attendance in the United States , 1998 .

[2]  R. Woodberry.  When surveys lie and people tell the truth : How surveys oversample church attenders : Church attendance in the United States , 1998 .

[3]  L Saxe,et al.  The substance use system: social and neighborhood environments associated with substance use and misuse. , 1998, Substance use & misuse.

[4]  Geoffrey Johnson.  The Small World , 1953 .

[5]  P. Killworth,et al.  The reversal small-world experiment , 1978 .

[6]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  A social network approach to corroborating the number of AIDS/HIV+ victims in the US ° , 1995 .

[7]  C. McCarty,et al.  Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size , 2001 .

[8]  R. Simeone,et al.  A plan for estimating the number of "hardcore" drug users in the United States. , 1995, The International journal of the addictions.

[9]  Tom W. Smith.  A Review of Church Attendance Measures , 1998 .

[10]  I. Sawhill,et al.  Defining and measuring the underclass , 1988 .

[11]  Survey Estimates of Drug-Use Trends in Urban Communities: General Principles and Cautionary Examples , 2000, Substance use & misuse.

[12]  Mark Chaves,et al.  Overreporting church attendance in America : Evidence that demands the same verdict : Church attendance in the United States , 1998 .

[13]  Manfred Kochen,et al.  Small World , 2002 .

[14]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  A social network approach to estimating seroprevalence in the United States , 1998 .

[15]  S. Presser,et al.  Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self-reported religious attendance : Church attendance in the United States , 1998 .

[16]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Estimating the size of an average personal network and of an event subpopulation: Some empirical results☆ , 1991 .

[17]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Who knows your HIV status? What HIV + patients and their network members know about each other , 1995 .

[18]  C. Kirk Hadaway,et al.  What the polls don't show: A closer look at U.S. church attendance. , 1993 .

[19]  D. Rindskopf,et al.  The visibility of illicit drugs: implications for community-based drug control strategies. , 2001, American journal of public health.

[20]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Estimation of Seroprevalence, Rape, and Homelessness in the United States Using a Social Network Approach , 1998, Evaluation review.