Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and Programs: Results from the 1994 and 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and Programs: Results from the 1994 and 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

6.6 Discussion

There were no statistically significant results⁵ from the multivariate analysis using the 1997 data. However, it is worth noting that in 1997, workers who reported that their workplaces had a written policy about alcohol or drug use appeared to be less likely to report either current illicit drug use or heavy alcohol use than workers who reported that their workplaces had no written policy. Further while workers who reported that their workplace conducted drug testing at hiring and on a random basis reported less current illicit drug use than workers whose workplaces did not do these tests, the only association that was significant in 1997 (p=.07) was drug testing on a random basis and current illicit drug use. With the cross-sectional data, the chronological order of the relationship between the workplace drug testing program and the workers

actual drug use behavior cannot be easily tested. It can be inferred that current illicit drug users may not be hired by, or choose not to work for, an employer who tests for drug use randomly.

In 1994, there appeared to be no relationship between drug use policies, programs, and drug testing. However, in 1997, workers whose workplace had a written policy about alcohol or drug use appeared to be less likely to report heavy alcohol use. This is an important relationship that should be studied further.

Table 6.1 Demographic Characteristics and Relative Likelihood of Any Illicit Drug Use in the Past Month of Full-Time Workers, Age 18-49, 1994 and 1997


	1994		1997
	Odds Ratio¹	95% Confidence Interval	Odds Ratio	95% Confidence Interval
Age Group 18-25² 26-34 35-49	1.00 0.83 0.53^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.60, 1.16) (0.35, 0.78)	1.00 0.65^* 0.53^*	(1.00, 1.00) (0.43, 0.97) (0.30, 0.93)
Gender Male² Female	1.00 0.47^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.35, 0.62)	1.00 0.41^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.28, 0.60)
Race/Ethnicity White² Black Hispanic	1.00 0.76 0.43^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.55, 1.04) (0.30, 0.62)	1.00 0.75 0.31^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.51, 1.09) (0.18, 0.54)
Education Less than high school² High school graduate Some college College graduate	1.00 0.98 0.96 0.87	(1.00, 1.00) (0.69, 1.40) (0.61, 1.49) (0.57, 1.35)	1.00 0.62 0.75 0.45^*	(1.00, 1.00) (0.35, 1.10) (0.40, 1.40) (0.21, 0.98)
Personal Income Less than $9,000² $9,000-$19,999 $20,000-$39,999 $40,000-$74,999 $75,000 or more	1.00 0.74 0.48^ 0.35^ 0.88	(1.00, 1.00) (0.52, 1.05) (0.30, 0.75) (0.18, 0.66) (0.37, 2.08)	1.00 0.57 0.42^** 0.40^* 0.67	(1.00, 1.00) (0.32, 1.02) (0.22, 0.82) (0.18, 0.89) (0.22, 2.05)
Establishment Size 1-24 Employees² 25-499 Employees 500 or More Employees	1.00 0.50^ 0.60^	(1.00, 1.00) (0.38, 0.66) (0.43, 0.83)	1.00 1.05 0.90	(1.00, 1.00) (0.77, 1.43) (0.48, 1.69)
Region Northeast² North Central South West	1.00 0.94 1.05 1.03	(1.00, 1.00) (0.58, 1.54) (0.71, 1.57) (0.61, 1.72)	1.00 1.55 1.13 1.82^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.92, 2.61) (0.64, 2.01) (1.16, 2.87)

¹ The odds ratios for each explanatory variable measure the likelihood of using any illicit drugs in the past month for the subgroup relative to a reference group.

² Reference group.

** P < .01; * P < .05

Source: Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1994B, 1997

Table 6.2 Relationship between Drug Use Policies, Programs, Tests and Relative Risk of Any Illicit Drug Use in the Past Month of Full-Time Workers, Age 18-49, 1994 and 1997¹


	1994		1997
	Odds Ratio²	95% Confidence Interval	Odds Ratio	95% Confidence Interval
Model I: Information, Policies, EAPs
Information about Alcohol or Drug Use Provided Not Provided³	0.86 1.00	(0.52, 1.42) (1.00, 1.00)	1.14 1.00	(0.49, 2.63) (1.00, 1.00)
Written Policy about Alcohol or Drug Use Yes No³	1.02 1.00	(0.63, 1.64) (1.00, 1.00)	0.45 1.00	(0.20, 1.03) (1.00, 1.00)
Employee Assistance Programs Available Not Available³	0.73 1.00	(0.52, 1.02) (1.00, 1.00)	1.59 1.00	(0.81, 3.15) (1.00, 1.00)
Model II: Test at hiring, randomly, upon suspicion, and post-accident
Test as Part of the Hiring Process Yes No³	0.61^* 1.00	(0.38, 0.98) (1.00, 1.00)	0.59 1.00	(0.29, 1.20) (1.00, 1.00)
Test on a Random Basis Yes No³	0.56^* 1.00	(0.33, 0.95) (1.00, 1.00)	0.55 1.00	(0.30, 1.04) (1.00, 1.00)
Test Upon Suspicion Yes No³	1.61 1.00	(0.81, 3.18) (1.00, 1.00)	2.06 1.00	(0.87, 4.88) (1.00, 1.00)
Test After a Work-Related Accident Yes No³	1.26 1.00	(0.66, 2.42) (1.00, 1.00)	1.16 1.00	(0.57, 2.35) (1.00, 1.00)

¹ In the analysis on which this table was based, the following demographic variables were controlled: gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, income, region, and the establishment size of the workplace.

² The odds ratios for each explanatory variable measure the likelihood of using any illicit drugs in the past month for the subgroup relative to a reference group.

³ Reference group

* P < .05.

Source: Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1994B, 1997

Table 6.3 Demographic Characteristics and Relative Likelihood of Heavy Alcohol Use in the Past Month of Full-Time Workers, Age 18-49, 1994 and 1997


	1994		1997
	Odds Ratio¹	95% Confidence Interval	Odds Ratio	95% Confidence Interval
Age Group 18-25² 26-34 35-49	1.00 0.73^* 0.52^*	(1.00, 1.00) (0.56, 0.95) (0.38, 0.70)	1.00 0.72^* 0.59^*	(1.00, 1.00) (0.54, 0.95) (0.39, 0.91)
Gender Male² Female	1.00 0.24^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.17, 0.33)	1.00 0.18^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.12, 0.28)
Race/Ethnicity White² Black Hispanic	1.00 0.53^** 0.79	(1.00, 1.00) (0.41, 0.70) (0.57, 1.10)	1.00 0.51^** 0.76	(1.00, 1.00) (0.33, 0.77) (0.49, 1.18)
Education Less than high school² High school graduate Some college College graduate	1.00 0.79 0.71 0.37^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.56, 1.13) (0.49, 1.02) (0.24, 0.59)	1.00 0.47^* 0.50^* 0.51^*	(1.00, 1.00) (0.27, 0.81) (0.27, 0.92) (0.28, 0.94)
Personal Income Less than $9,000² $9,000-$19,999 $20,000-$39,999 $40,000-$74,999 $75,000 or more	1.00 1.23 0.84 1.01 0.75	(1.00, 1.00) (0.89, 1.70) (0.60, 1.18) (0.59, 1.74) (0.27, 2.11)	1.00 0.97 0.69 0.61 0.15^**	(1.00, 1.00) (0.56, 1.68) (0.38, 1.23) (0.32, 1.17) (0.04, 0.57)
Establishment Size 1-24 Employees² 25-499 Employees 500 or More Employees	1.00 0.94 0.96	(1.00, 1.00) (0.73, 1.21) (0.65, 1.41)	1.00 1.39 1.45	(1.00, 1.00) (0.92, 2.10) (0.90, 2.34)
Region Northeast² North Central South West	1.00 1.51^* 1.08 0.67^*	(1.00, 1.00) (1.04, 2.21) (0.80, 1.46) (0.45, 1.00)	1.00 1.05 0.71 0.65	(1.00, 1.00) (0.58, 1.89) (0.38, 1.32) (0.36, 1.16)

¹ The odds ratios for each explanatory variable measure the likelihood of heavy alcohol use in the past month for the subgroup relative to a reference group.

² Reference group

** P < .01; * P < .05.

Source: Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1994B, 1997.

Table 6.4 Relationship between Drug Use Policies, Programs, Tests and Relative Risk of Heavy Alcohol Use in the Past Month of Full-Time Workers, Age 18-49, 1994 and 1997¹


	1994		1997
	Odds Ratio²	95% Confidence Interval	Odds Ratio	95% Confidence Interval
Model I: Information, Policies, EAPs
Information about Alcohol or Drug Use Provided Not Provided³	1.06 1.00	(0.55, 2.05) (1.00, 1.00)	1.43 1.00	(0.66, 3.07) (1.00, 1.00)
Written Policy about Alcohol or Drug Use Yes No³	0.91 1.00	(0.44, 1.89) (1.00, 1.00)	0.46 1.00	(0.21, 1.01) (1.00, 1.00)
Employee Assistance Programs Available Not Available³	0.85 1.00	(0.61, 1.21) (1.00, 1.00)	1.20 1.00	(0.76, 1.89) (1.00, 1.00)
Model II: Test at hiring, randomly, upon suspicion, and post-accident
Test as Part of the Hiring Process Yes No³	0.88 1.00	(0.62, 1.25) (1.00, 1.00)	0.68 1.00	(0.38, 1.23) (1.00, 1.00)
Test on a Random Basis Yes No³	0.86 1.00	(0.57, 1.30) (1.00, 1.00)	1.45 1.00	(0.87, 2.42) (1.00, 1.00)
Test Upon Suspicion Yes No³	0.82 1.00	(0.47, 1.42) (1.00, 1.00)	1.08 1.00	(0.65, 1.79) (1.00, 1.00)
Test After a Work-Related Accident Yes No³	1.45 1.00	(0.88, 2.41) (1.00, 1.00)	1.25 1.00	(0.65, 2.40) (1.00, 1.00)

² The odds ratios for each explanatory variable measure the likelihood of using any illicit drugs in the past month for the subgroup relative to a reference group.

³ Reference group

Source: Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1994B, 1997

5 In a separate analysis, the ADon=t know@ responses to the survey questions regarding the drug use information, policies, EAPs, and drug testing programs were coded as ANo=s@ rather than as missing. The estimate results were similar to what were presented here.

This is the page footer.

This page was last updated on December 30, 2008.

SAMHSA, an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services, is the Federal Government's lead agency for improving the quality and availability of substance abuse prevention, addiction treatment, and mental health services in the United States.

* Adobe™ PDF and MS Office™ formatted files require software viewer programs to properly read them. Click here to download these FREE programs now