Research article

Prescription Drug Diversion: Predictors of Illicit Acquisition and Redistribution in Three U.S. Metropolitan Areas

  • Received: 27 July 2015 Accepted: 16 November 2015 Published: 02 December 2015
  • Objective: Prescription drug diversion, the transfer of prescription drugs from lawful to unlawful channels for distribution or use, is a problem in the United States. Despite the pervasiveness of diversion, there are gaps in the literature regarding characteristics of individuals who participate in the illicit trade of prescription drugs. This study examines a range of predictors (e.g., demographics, prescription insurance coverage, perceived risk associated with prescription drug diversion) of membership in three distinct diverter groups: individuals who illicitly acquire prescription drugs, those who redistribute them, and those who engage in both behaviors. Methods: Data were drawn from a cross-sectional Internet study (N = 846) of prescription drug use and diversion patterns in New York City, South Florida, and Washington, D.C.. Participants were classified into diversion categories based on their self-reported involvement in the trade of prescription drugs. Group differences in background characteristics of diverter groups were assessed by Chi-Square tests and followed up with multivariate logistic regressions. Results: While individuals in all diversion groups were more likely to be younger and have a licit prescription for any of the assessed drugs in the past year than those who did not divert, individuals who both acquire and redistribute are more likely to live in New York City, not have prescription insurance coverage, and perceive fewer legal risks of prescription drug diversion. Conclusion: Findings suggest that predictive characteristics vary according to diverter group.

    Citation: Shana Harris, Valentina Nikulina, Camila Gelpí-Acosta, Cory Morton, Valerie Newsome, Alana Gunn, Heidi Hoefinger, Ross Aikins, Vivian Smith, Victoria Barry, Martin J. Downing Jr.. Prescription Drug Diversion: Predictors of Illicit Acquisition and Redistribution in Three U.S. Metropolitan Areas[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(4): 762-783. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.762

    Related Papers:

    [1] Amanda L. Divin, Keith J. Zullig . The Association between Non-Medical Prescription Drug Use and Suicidal Behavior among United States Adolescents. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(4): 226-240. doi: 10.3934/Publichealth.2014.4.226
    [2] Walid El Ansari, Khalid A Khalil, Derrick Ssewanyana, Christiane Stock . Behavioral risk factor clusters among university students at nine universities in Libya. AIMS Public Health, 2018, 5(3): 296-311. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2018.3.296
    [3] Bee Leng Per, Anne W Taylor, Tiffany K Gill . Prescription medicines, over-the-counter medicines and complementary and alternative medicines use: a comparison between baby boomers and older South Australians. AIMS Public Health, 2019, 6(4): 380-395. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.4.380
    [4] David Adzrago, Ikponmwosa Osaghae, Nnenna Ananaba, Sylvia Ayieko, Pierre Fwelo, Nnabuchi Anikpezie, Donna Cherry . Examining differences in suicidality between and within mental health disorders and sexual identity among adults in the United States. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(4): 636-654. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021051
    [5] James A. Swartz, Dana Franceschini, Kamryn Scamperle . Mental health and substance use disorder comorbidities among Medicaid beneficiaries: Associations with opioid use disorder and prescription opioid misuse. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(3): 658-677. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023046
    [6] Sarah Moreland-Russell PhD MPH, Todd Combs PhD, Janice Jones MPH, Amy A. Sorg MPH . State level point-of-sale policy priority as a result of the FSPTCA. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(4): 681-690. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.681
    [7] Susanne Klawetter, Jennifer C. Greenfield, Stephanie Rachel Speer, Kyria Brown, Sunah S. Hwang . An integrative review: maternal engagement in the neonatal intensive care unit and health outcomes for U.S.-born preterm infants and their parents. AIMS Public Health, 2019, 6(2): 160-183. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.2.160
    [8] Amir Alakaam, Amanda Willyard . Eating habits and dietary acculturation effects among international college students in the United States. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(2): 228-240. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020020
    [9] Mehdi Khoobdel, Davoud Keshavarzi, Seyed Hassan Mossa-Kazemi, Hossein Sobati . Species diversity of mosquitoes of the Genus Culex (Diptera, Culicidae) in the coastal areas of the Persian Gulf. AIMS Public Health, 2019, 6(2): 99-106. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.2.99
    [10] Pamela Payne Foster, Martina Thomas, Dwight Lewis . Reverse Migration, the Black Church and Sexual Health: Implications for Building HIV/AIDS Prevention Capacity in the Deep South. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(2): 242-254. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.2.242
  • Objective: Prescription drug diversion, the transfer of prescription drugs from lawful to unlawful channels for distribution or use, is a problem in the United States. Despite the pervasiveness of diversion, there are gaps in the literature regarding characteristics of individuals who participate in the illicit trade of prescription drugs. This study examines a range of predictors (e.g., demographics, prescription insurance coverage, perceived risk associated with prescription drug diversion) of membership in three distinct diverter groups: individuals who illicitly acquire prescription drugs, those who redistribute them, and those who engage in both behaviors. Methods: Data were drawn from a cross-sectional Internet study (N = 846) of prescription drug use and diversion patterns in New York City, South Florida, and Washington, D.C.. Participants were classified into diversion categories based on their self-reported involvement in the trade of prescription drugs. Group differences in background characteristics of diverter groups were assessed by Chi-Square tests and followed up with multivariate logistic regressions. Results: While individuals in all diversion groups were more likely to be younger and have a licit prescription for any of the assessed drugs in the past year than those who did not divert, individuals who both acquire and redistribute are more likely to live in New York City, not have prescription insurance coverage, and perceive fewer legal risks of prescription drug diversion. Conclusion: Findings suggest that predictive characteristics vary according to diverter group.


    1. Introduction

    The nonmedical use of prescription drugs, use not intended by a prescribing physician [1], has been well documented in the United States [2,3,4,5,6]. There are as many as 6.8 million current nonmedical users of psychotherapeutic drugs (e.g., pain medications, stimulants, depressants) in the country; of those, 4.9 million use pain medications and 1.2 million use stimulants [7]. A potentially related problem of nonmedical prescription drug use is prescription drug abuse, which has increased markedly in recent years [1,8,9,10,11]. Between 1998 and 2008, the incidence of prescription drug abuse increased by 400% [12]. Among young people, for instance, prescription drugs are the second most-abused category ofdrugs after marijuana [13]. As such, prescription drug abuse is the nation’s fastest-growing drug problem [14].

    Most experts consider prescription drug diversion to be a major driver of the country’s prescription drug abuse epidemic [15]. “Diversion” is the transfer of prescription drugs from lawful to unlawful channels for distribution or use [16]. Diversion entails the illicit acquisition of drugs from medical sources, primarily through theft [17,18], prescription forgery [19,20], and “shopping” for lenient physicians or pharmacists [15,21,22]. It also entails the illicit acquisition of prescription drugs from nonmedical sources, usually through trading, stealing, borrowing, or purchasing from family and friends [23,24,25,26,27,28], street-level drug dealers or markets [16,21,29], and online pharmacies or websites [23,30,31]. In addition to acquisition, diversion includes the illicit redistribution of prescription drugs outside of a licit healthcare context [5,20,22,25,32,33,34]. As Inciardi and Cicero [35] noted, diversion — both acquisition and redistribution — can happen along all points in the prescription drug delivery process, from manufacturing site to wholesale distributor to physician’s office to pharmacy to patient.

    Recent research shows an increase in prescription drug diversion in the United States [5,10,35]. This is associated with a variety of issues, such as increased emergency room visits [5,36], overdose and overdose-related deaths [9,37,38,39], crime [10] [40], healthcare treatment and costs [5,19,41], and drug prevention and interception expenses [42]. Despite these concerns, diversion remains an understudied problem [11,15,16,35,43]. Most studies of prescription drug diversion focus on diversion behaviors among particular populations, especially college students [27,28,33,44,45,46,47] and pain patients [25,48,49], or the diversion of specific prescription drugs, mainly opioids [26,32,50,51,52] and stimulants [24,28,53,54]. Research with broader samples on more diverse drug classes would add to literature on prescription drug diversion.

    Although illicit acquisition and redistribution of prescription drugs is a key contributor to prescription drug misuse [15,25], there is a paucity of research examining correlates of engaging in illicit prescription drug acquisition and redistribution. The few studies that have studied predictors of prescription drug sharing and redistribution find that younger individuals are more likely to engage in the diversion of prescription drugs, including both acquisition and redistribution [55,56]. Findings regarding gender are mixed; some studies find more diversion among women, including both acquisition and redistribution [56,57,58,59], while others report no gender differences in acquisition [60]. Race/ethnicity differences have also been observed; some studies find that White, non-Hispanic individuals are more likely to redistribute prescription drugs [56] while others report no race/ethnicity differences in acquisition and redistribution [61,62]. Furthermore, the influence of income and prescription drug coverage on diversion behaviors [23] and perceptions of risks of diversion are understudied. A more in-depth understanding of correlates of diversion behaviors could elucidate pathways that contribute to misuse. Additionally, it is important to replicate results with new samples and recruitment methods, which could help clarify inconsistencies in previous findings.

    The present study addresses this gap in the extant literature by offering insights into correlates of illicit acquisition and redistribution. Although both acquisition and redistribution are part of the prescription drug trade, these behaviors serve different functions and may be associated with different predictors that have not been previously examined in the prescription drug diversion literature. Drawing on studies of the illicit drug trade, it is likely that predictors of acquisition and redistribution are overlapping but also differ [63,64]. The limited attention to heterogeneity of behaviors that comprise diversion could lead to erroneous assumptions about the characteristics of individuals involved in illicit diversion of prescription drugs. As described above, age, race/ethnicity, and gender differences [56,57,58,59] have been cited as predictors of diversion and anecdotal reports from medical providers and law enforcement suggest that diversion is more prominent among White, middle class communities [65]. However, current research evidence is insufficient to conclude whether these characteristics describe all individuals involved in prescription drug diversion or only those who acquire the drugs illicitly. Therefore, this study analyzes correlates of membership in three distinct diverter groups in these areas: 1) individuals who illicitly acquire prescription drugs, 2) individuals who redistribute them, and 3) individuals who engage in both behaviors. We analyze a number of variables that have been identified as potentially important correlates of diversion behaviors [23,66] across these groups, including demographics, background characteristics, and perceptions of legal risk associated with drug diversion. We present data from a cross-sectional Internet study of prescription drug use and diversion patterns in three metropolitan areas with high prevalence rates of prescription drug diversion [5,22,29] in the eastern United States: New York City, South Florida, and Washington, D.C.

    2. Methods

    2.1. Participants

    The sample consisted of 846 participants (248 males; average age = 36 years) drawn from the metropolitan areas of New York City (n = 348), South Florida (n = 202), and Washington, D.C. (n = 319). These cities were targeted for analysis because of previous documentation of prescription drug diversion in these metropolitan areas [5,22,29].

    2.2. Procedure

    The present study utilized online surveys to collect data from participants. All participants for this study were recruited through cost-free advertisement campaigns on Craigslist.org from May 2013 to April 2014. Craigslist is a publicly accessible, online bulletin board where users can post advertisements for real estate, employment, sexual encounters, volunteering, and other goods and services. It is a highly trafficked site, currently ranked 9th in the United States [67]. Past studies of drug use have successfully recruited participants for online research through this site [68,69,70,71].

    The present study used elements of time-space sampling for its Craigslist advertisements [72]. A member of the research team posted an advertisement in the “volunteers” section of Craigslist at randomly selected hours. A true random number service (www.random.org) was used to randomly select the hour in which a daily post occurred. Recruitment occurred once per day from 7:00am to 12:00am. A total of 325 advertisements were posted during the recruitment period. Advertisements instructed interested persons to click on an embedded link to an online survey. These procedures are similar to those used in past studies [68,73]. As in these other studies, the respondent sample may have been biased because the participants self selected.

    Individuals who clicked on the survey link in the Craigslist advertisements were taken directly to the survey information and consent page, which included a description of study procedures and risks/benefits of participation. Participants were asked on the consent page to verify that they are at least 18 years of age. Once age was verified, participants were asked if they agree to participate in the study. Those who clicked “YES, I agree to participate” to the participation question were considered to have provided consent to participate and were advanced to the next screen, which started the survey. Only individuals who consented were eligible to participate. Those who consented to participate and completed the survey were given the option to provide an email address for entry into a drawing for one of five $100 Amazon gift cards.

    To reduce the potential for multiple survey submissions by a single individual, the Internet Provider (IP) addresses of the participants were recorded through the survey host (Qualtrics). Although IP addresses do not specifically identify individuals, they are still considered a source of identifying information because they can be traced back to a computer with potentially one owner/user [69,74,75,76]. To preserve confidentiality, all IP addresses were destroyed after checking for duplicate submissions. We identified 21 duplicate submissions, which were removed from data analyses. The first entry was retained as evidenced by an earlier timestamp associated with the IP address. Participant data were also removed from analyses because of extensive missing data (i.e., no more than 4 initial questions answered, n = 32) or because they failed to meet the study inclusion criteria by obtaining the link to the survey from sources other than Craigslist (n = 16) or by residing outside of the targeted geographical areas (n = 33). The study protocol received Institutional Review Board approval through the National Development and Research Institutes.

    2.3. Measures

    2.3.1. Demographics and background characteristics

    Demographics and background characteristics were collected for all participants. Seventy one percent of the sample identified as female. On average participants were 36 years of age [range 18 to 82 years]. Participants were asked to identify their race/ethnicity from the following list of categories: White/Caucasian(65%), African American/Black (13%), Hispanic/Latino (12%), Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (5%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (1%), more than one race (3%), and other (1%). Because 65% of the participants identified as White/Caucasian and no other group was overwhelmingly represented, participants were assigned to one of two groups: White (65%) and Non-White (35%). Participants were asked to report their annual income by choosing from one of nine categories: less than $10,000 (26%), $10,000 to $20,000 (15%), $20,001 to $30,000 (12%), $30,001 to $50,000 (17%), $50,001 to $70,000 (10%), $70,001 to $100,000 (14%), $100,001 to $150,000 (6%), $150,001 to $200,000 (1%), and more than $200,000 (1%). Because several income categories were too small to analyze, and to maximize analytical power, income categories were collapsed into three categories: below $30,000 (53%), $30,001 to $70,000 (26%), and above $70,000 (21%). Participants were asked to select their highest attained level of education from the following five categories: less than a high school degree (3%), high school/GED (14%), some college (37%), college degree (32%), and graduate/professional degree (15%). To maximize analytical power, education categories were collapsed into two: high school or below (16%) and some college and above (83%). Participants also reported if they currently have prescription drug insurance coverage (85%) and whether they had a licit prescriptionfor opioids, stimulants, sedatives and tranquilizers (including anti-depressants), and sexual enhancement/erectile dysfunctiondrugs for a legitimated medical purpose within the past year (64%).

    Participants also reported sources of illicitly-obtained drugs. Thirteen percent were obtained from medical sources, 32% were given by friends/family, 27% were purchased from friends/family, 15% were purchased from a dealer, 4% were stolen from friends/family, 4% were obtained online, and 4% were obtained from other sources. Participants reported that 47% of the redistributed prescription drugs were given away, 28% were traded, and 25% were sold.

    2.3.2. Illicit prescription drug diversion behaviors

    Participants were asked about their illicit prescription diversion behavior over the last 12 months for four drug classes: opioids, stimulants, sedatives and tranquilizers (including anti-depressants), and sexual enhancement/erectile dysfunctiondrugs. Across all analyses, these four drug classes were collapsed into a single prescription drug category for analysis. Questions assessed whether participants acquired prescription drugs through various medical channels (e.g., doctor shopping, fabricated medical problem) or non-medical channels (e.g., family member, friend, drug dealer, online retailer) or redistributed any prescription drugs. Participants were classified into four mutually exclusive groups: 1) non-diverters (n = 521) representing individuals who did not report any involvement in illicitly acquiring or redistributing prescription drugs, 2) illicit acquirers (n = 145) representing individuals who reported illicitly acquiring prescription drugs, 3) illicit redistributors (n = 62) representing individuals who reported illicitly redistributing prescription drugs, and 4) those who were both illicit acquirers and redistributors (n = 118) representing individuals who reported both acquiring and redistributing prescription drugs illicitly.

    2.3.3. Perceptions of legal risks of prescription drug diversion

    Participants were asked a series of items to elicit their perceptions of the legal consequences that people risk if they: (1) buy, sell, trade, or give away their prescription drugs; (2) buy, sell, trade, or give away prescription drugs that are not their own; (3) approach a doctor for prescription drugs for nonmedical use; (4) order prescription drugs not prescribed to them over the Internet; (5) smuggle prescription drugs from abroad; and (6) forge doctor prescriptions or call-in false prescriptions. Response options included no risk, slight risk, moderate risk, and great risk. Higher scores represented greater perceived risk of legal consequences. These items were averaged (i.e., for every participant his/her responses to each of the items were summed and divided by six, the number of items of the scale) to create an index score for perceived risks of prescription drug diversion (a = .87). The index score represents the average rating of risk that the participants attributed to engaging in diversion of prescription drugs. Because no gold standard assessment exists for measuring risk associated with diversion, the authors created this scale for the purposes of this study. Past research studying risk perceptions associated with drugs have generated similar instruments to answer their unique research questions [77,78,79].

    2.3.4. Perceptions of legal risks of illicit drug diversion

    Two questions were asked to elicit participants’ perceptions of the legal consequences that people risk if they: (1) buy, sell, trade, or give away marijuana and (2) buy, sell, trade, or give away other narcotics (e.g., cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, etc.). These illicit drugs make up the highest percentage of the illicit drug market in the United States [80,81]. Response options included no risk, slight risk, moderate risk, and great risk. Higher scores represented greater perceived risk of legal consequences. These items were averaged (i.e., for every participant his/her responses to each of the items were summed and divided by two, the number of items of the scale) to create an index score for perceived risks of illicit drug diversion (a = .70). Similar to the assessment of risk perceptions associated with diversion of prescription drugs, the authors created this scale for the purposes of this study.

    2.4. Data analysis

    To minimize the impact of missing data on the analyses, multiple imputations were conducted using SPSS [82,83,84]. This approach utilizes available data to impute missing values and is the preferred technique for handling missing data that minimizes bias. Multiple imputation is the preferred method for handling missing data which relies on participant’s own observed values and random noise to generate missing values. This approach maintains the joint distribution between variables (e.g., variance, correlations) and minimizes the bias in estimates of missing values [83,84]. No variable was missing more than 25% of data. As is standard with SPSS [82], there were four imputed datasets generated for missing values and the fifth one pooled these data together. Predictors with missing data were imputed based on other predictors or demographics in the dataset (age, area of residence, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, student status, annual income, prescription drug insurance coverage, receipt of a prescription in the last year, legal risk of prescription drug diversion, and legal risk of illegal drug diversion). Dependent variables were not imputed. Group differences between participants’ diversion classification (i.e., non-diverter, illicit acquirer, illicit redistributor, and both illicit acquirer/redistributor) and demographic characteristics and risk perception variables were assessed with Chi-Square tests and Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs), followed up with planned linear contrasts. Linear contrasts first compared those not involved in illicit behavior to all three diverter groups, then compared the illicit acquirers/redistributors to the other two diverter groups and finally compared the illicit acquirer to the redistributor groups. Subsequently, multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to assess which demographic and risk perception variables remain correlated with illicit acquisition and redistribution (by participant diversion classification) when other correlates were controlled.

    3. Results

    3.1. Demographic and Background Characteristics

    Table 1 shows the demographic and background characteristics for the sample. Assignment to diversion categories was associated with all of the predictors except for gender and education level (see Table 1). It was also associated with self-reported consumption of illicitly acquired prescription drugs. Of note, a higher percentage of participants in the illicit acquirer/redistributor group compared to the other groups were White, currently a student, had an income above $70,000 per year, did not have prescription drug insurance coverage but had a licit prescription for any class of drugs assessed in this study in the past year. This group was also younger than any other group with a mean age of 28.38 years. Furthermore, those in the illicit acquirer/redistributor group reported the lowest perceived legal risk associated with both prescription drug and illegal drug diversion. Additionally, when comparing only the three diverter groups on these demographics and background characteristics, the differences remained significant (Supplemental Table 1). Results from linear contrasts comparing mean differences in age and perceived legal risk of diversion in the four groups are presented in Supplemental Table 2.

    Table 1. Demographics and background characteristics across groups of participants defined by their involvement in diversion
    Overall SampleNot Involved in illicit behaviorIllicit AcquirerIllicit RedistributorIllicit Acquirer/redistributorχ2(df)
    N = 846 (%)n = 521 (%)n = 145 (%)n = 62 (%)n = 118 (%)
    Area of residence
    New York City335 (39.7)182 (35.0)54 (37.2)20 (32.7)79 (66.9)47.5 (6)***
    South Florida197 (23.3)131 (24.1)35 (24.1)21 (34.4)10 (8.5)
    Washington, D.C.312 (37.0)207 (39.8)56 (38.6)20 (32.7)29 (24.5)
    Gender
    Male 248 (29.4)166 (31.9)43 (29.7)14 (22.6)25 (21.6)6.4 (3)†
    Female354 (70.6)354 (68.1)102 (70.3)48 (77.4)91 (78.4)
    Race/ethnicity
    Non-White293 (34.8)192 (36.9)60 (41.7)17 (27.4)24 (20.7)15.7 (3)***
    White549 (65.2)328 (63.1)84 (58.3)45 (72.6)92 (79.3)
    Education level
    H.S. or below140 (16.6)89 (17.1)27 (18.9)10 (16.1)14 (11.9)2.6 (3)
    Some college +703 (83.4)431 (82.9)116 (81.1)52 (83.9)104 (88.1)
    Student status
    Student249 (29.9)125 (24.2)40 (28.8)13 (21.0)71 (61.2)64.8 (3)***
    Not a student585 (70.1)392 (75.8)99 (71.2)49 (79.0)45 (38.8)
    Annual income
    < 30,000442 (52.7)281 (54.5)85 (59.0)32 (53.3)44 (37.3)60.4 (6)***
    30,000 to 70,000222 (26.5)150 (29.1)40 (27.8)13 (21.7)19 (16.1)
    > 70,000174 (20.8)85 (16.5)19 (13.2)15 (25.0)55 (46.6)
    Rx insurance coverage
    Yes599 (85.1)390 (92.9)107 (84.9)47 (95.9)55 (50.5)127.5 (3) ***
    No105 (14.9)30 (7.1)19 (15.1)2 (4.1)54 (49.5)
    Rx in last year
    No283 (36.1)226 (47.2)33 (24.3)13 (24.1)11 (9.6)72.5 (3) ***
    Yes 501 (63.9)253 (52.8)103 (75.7)41 (75.9)104 (90.4)
    M (SD)F (df1, df2)
    Age36.16 (14.8)38.58 (15.6)a34.30 (13.3)b35.03 (13.6)b28.38 (9.1)b29.6 (3,211)***
    Legal risk of Rx drug diversion3.19 (0.7)3.37 (0.6)a3.22 (0.8)b3.04 (0.6)b2.667 (0.6)b39.6 (3,171.9)***
    Legal risk of illegal drug diversion3.20 (0.8)3.38 (0.7)a3.12 (0.9)b3.21 (0.7)b2.67 (0.6)b34.6 (3,171.9)***
    Note: χ2 and ANOVA analyses compared the demographic characteristics and perceptions of legal risk of drug diversion across the four groups (not involved, acquirer, redistributor, and acquirer/redistributor); Welch ANOVA results are presented to correct for heterogeneity of variance; † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.0 001; *** p < 0.001; All planned linear contrasts comparing group differences in age, and risk were significant at the p < 0.000 level. Superscripts indicate mean differences = same superscripts indicate no significant difference.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Supplemental Table 1. Demographics and background characteristics associations across three groups of participants involved in diversion
    Sample of DivertersIllicit AcquirerIllicit RedistributorIllicit Acquirer/redistributorχ2(df)
    N = 325 (%)n = 145 (%)n = 62 (%)n = 118 (%)
    Area of residence
    New York City153 (47.2)54 (37.2)20 (32.7)79 (66.9)34.56 (6)***
    South Florida66 (20.4)35 (24.1)21 (34.4)10 (8.5)
    Washington, D.C.105 (32.4)56 (38.6)20 (32.7)29 (24.5)
    Gender
    Male82 (25.4)43 (29.7)14 (22.6)25 (21.6)2.5 (2)
    Female241 (74.6)102 (70.3)48 (77.4)91 (78.4)
    Race/ethnicity
    Non-White101 (31.4)60 (41.7)17 (27.4)24 (20.7)13.7 (2)**
    White221 (68.6)84 (58.3)45 (72.6)92 (79.3)
    Education level
    H.S. or below51 (15.8)27 (18.9)10 (16.1)14 (11.9)2.4 (2)
    Some college +272 (84.2)116 (81.1)52 (83.9)104 (88.1)
    Student status
    Student124 (39.1)40 (28.8)13 (21.0)71 (61.2)38.5 (2)***
    Not a student193 (60.9)99 (71.2)49 (79.0)45 (38.8)
    Annual income
    < 30,000161 (50.0)85 (59.0)32 (53.3)44 (37.3)36.7 (4)***
    30,000 to 70,00072 (22.4)40 (27.8)13 (21.7)19 (16.1)
    > 70,00089 (27.6)19 (13.2)15 (25.0)55 (46.6)
    Rx insurance coverage25.4 (2) ***
    Yes209 (64.3)107 (84.9)47 (95.9)55 (50.5)
    No116 (35.7)19 (15.1)2 (4.1)54 (49.5)
    Rx in last year50.9 (2) ***
    No209 (73.6)33 (24.3)13 (24.1)11 (9.6)
    Yes75 (26.4)103 (75.7)41 (75.9)104 (90.4)
    M (SD)F (df1, df2)
    Age32.3 (12.3)34.30 (13.3)c35.03 (13.6)c28.38 (9.1)b12.03 (2,153)***
    Legal risk of Rx drug diversion2.9 (0.7)3.22 (0.8)c3.04 (0.6)c2.667 (0.6)b14.3 (2,168.4)***
    Legal risk of illegal drug diversion3.0 (0.8)3.12 (0.9)c3.21 (0.7)c2.67 (0.6)b20 (2,178.7)***
    Note: χ2 and ANOVA analyses compared the demographic characteristics and perceptions of legal risk of drug diversion across the four groups (not involved, acquirer, redistributor, and acquirer/redistributor); Welch ANOVA results are presented to correct for heterogeneity of variance; † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001; *** p < 0.001; All planned linear contrasts comparing group differences in age, and risk were significant at the p < 0.000 level. Superscripts indicate mean differences = same superscripts indicate no significant difference.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2. Multivariate logistic regressions predicting involvement in prescription drug diversion relative to non-diverters
    AcquirerRedistributorAcquirer/Redistributor
    BSE BOR (95CI)BSE BOR (95CI)BSE BOR (95CI)
    Area of residence (NYC reference)-0.070.270.93 (0.53,1.58)0.60?0.361.83 (0.90,3.73)-0.91*0.430.40 (0.17,0 .93)
    South Florida-0.090.230.91 (0.58,1.44)-0.260.350.78 (0.39,1.53)-0.480.310.62 (0.34,1.14)
    Washington, D.C.
    White-0.130.220.88 (0.58,1.34)0.420.341.53 (0.79,2.90)0.480.331.62 (0.85,3.09)
    Female-0.060.220.94 (0.61,1.46)0.330.341.39 (0.72,2.70)-0.170.320.84 (0.45,1.58)
    Age-0.02*0.010.98 (0.96 , 1.0)-0.04**0.020.97 (0.94, .99)-0.05***0.010.95 (0.92,0.98)
    > High school-0.090.280.91 (0.53,1.56)-0.060.410.95 (0.41,2.13)-0.580.400.56 (0.26,1.23)
    Student status-0.040.270.96 (0.57,1.63)-0.330.390.72 (0.34,1.54)0.390.341.48 (0.75,2.90)
    Annual income -0.040.240.96 (0.60,1.44)-0.310.370.74 (0.36,1.52)0.030.361.03 (0.51,2.08)
    (< 30,000, reference)-0.180.330.83 (0.44,1.60)0.073 †0.422.07 (0.90,4.74)0.71 †0.402.02 (0.93,4.12)
    30,000 to 70,000
    > 70,000
    Rx insurance coverage-0.430.370.65 (0.31,1.37)0.170.651.19 (.30,4.28)-0.97*0.410.38 (0.17,0.85)
    Rx in last year1.14***0.233.24 (2.00,4.94)0.89*0.352.44 (1.22,4.87)1.86***0.366.44 (3.16,13.12)
    Legal risk of Rx diversion- 0.40?0.200.67 (0.45,1.00)-0.87**0.280.42 (-0.24,0.72)-0.71*0.290.49 (0.28,0.86)
    Legal risk of illicit drug diversion - 0.210.200.81 (0.54,1.21)0.170.281.18(0.69,2.03)-0.380.250.69 (0.42,1.11)
    Note: Results are based on the pooled imputed data; † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.0001; *** p < 0.001
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Supplemental Table 2. Results from planned linear contrasts comparing means age, perceptions of legal risk associated with diversion of prescription and illicit drugs
    AgeLegal risk of Rx drug diversionLegal risk of illegal drug diversion
    t (df)
    Contrast 1:
    Not involved in illicit trade compared to everyone else5.7 (425.3)***7.9(440.7)***6.7(530.1)***
    Contrast 2:
    Illicit acquirer/redistributor compared to illicit acquirer and illicit redistributor-4.8 (218.9)***-5.3(245.3)***-6.3(238.2)***
    Contrast 3:
    Illicit acquirer compared to illicit redistributor-0.36 (112.8)-0.13(135.2)-0.95(154.0)
    Note: Results are based on the pooled imputed data; *** p < 0.001
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    3.2. Illicit Acquirer

    Table 2 shows results from three separate regression analyses (one for each diversion classification group). For the acquirer group, age was negatively associated with illicit acquisition (β = -0.02, OR = 0.98, p < 0.05). Also, having a history of having a licit prescription for any class of drug assessed in this study was positively associated with illicit acquisition (β = 1.14, OR = 3.24, p < 0.001). Area of residence, race, gender, education, being a student, income, prescription insurance coverage, perceived legal risk of prescription diversion, and perceptions of legal risk of illicit drug diversion were not associated with membership in the illicit acquirer group.

    3.3. Illicit Redistributor

    For the redistributor group, regression analyses demonstrated that age was negatively associated with illicit redistribution (β = -0.04, OR = 0.97, p < 0.01). As with illicit acquisition, a history of having a licit prescription for any class of drug assessed in this study was positively associated with illicit redistribution (β = 0.89, OR = 2.44, p < 0.05). Additionally, perceived legal risks of prescription diversion was negatively associated with redistribution (β = -0.87, OR = 0.42, p < 0.01). Area of residence, race, gender, education, being a student, income, insurance coverage, and perceptions of legal risk of illicit drug diversion were not associated with membership in the illicit redistributor group.

    3.4. Illicit Acquirer/Redistributor

    Regression analyses demonstrated several main effects for individuals involved in both illicit acquisition and redistribution. As with the illicit acquisition and redistribution groups, age was negatively associated with both illicit behaviors (i.e., acquisition and redistribution) (β = - 0.05, OR = 0 .95, p < 0.001) and a history of having a licit prescription for any class of drug assessed in this study was positively associated with both illicit behaviors (β = 1.86, OR = 6.44, p < 0.001). However, there were some differences with the combined group. First, compared to participants in New York City (referent), participants in South Florida were less likely to participate in both illicit acquisition and redistribution of prescription drugs (β = - 0.91, OR = 0.40, p < 0.05). Second, perceived legal risks of prescription drug diversion was negatively associated with being in the combined illicit acquisition and redistribution group (β = - 0.71, OR = 0.49, p < 0.05). In fact, those who engaged in both illicit acquisition and redistribution had the lowest perception of legal risk associated with prescription and illegal drug diversion of all the groups assessed (see Table 1). Finally, participants who had insurance with prescription drug coverage were less likely to engage in both acquisition and redistribution than those without such coverage (β = - 0.97, OR = 0.38, p < 0.05). Race, gender, education, being a student, income, and perceptions of legal risk of illicit drug diversion were not associated with membership in the illicit acquirer/redistributor group.

    4. Discussion

    The present study assessed predictors of illicit prescription drug acquisition and redistribution using an Internet sample of individuals residing in three metropolitan areas in the United States. Relative to those not involved in diversion activities, illicit acquirers and illicit redistributors were more likely to be younger and have a licit prescription in the past year. Also, illicit redistributors perceived less risk associated with prescription drug diversion. These predictors were also significant for those engaged in both illicit activities (acquisition and redistribution). Individuals engaging in both activities were also more likely to live in New York City and not have insurance with prescription drug coverage. Additionally, while our results support previous research findings on illicit prescription drug behaviors being more prevalent among those who are young and White [56,57,58,59], our findings show other variables—largely unexplored in the literature—to be more significant in their positive association to the illicit acquisition and redistribution of prescription drugs.

    Our findings add to the literature on the association between diversion behaviors and income, prescription drug insurance coverage, and having a licit prescription. These topics have received little attention in past research [23]. This study corroborated that having a prescription, and simultaneous lack of prescription drug coverage, were more important in explaining engagement in both illicit acquisition and redistribution than income. These findings may suggest that individuals without prescription drug coverage are more likely to engage in the illicit trade of prescription drugs. The negative consequences associated with diversion of prescription drugs [9,37,38,39] generated calls for stricter prescription drug policies that would reduce the availability of certain medications such as prescription opioids. The present study suggests that, in addition to prescription practices, policy makers should consider prescription drug insurance coverage as a variable when examining prescription drug diversion and prevention. Arguably, when uninsured, individuals may resort to alternative (illicit) ways of acquiring prescription drugs, whether out of “medical need” or not. This is a largely unexplored theme, and more research is needed to understand the extent of this phenomenon. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to examine how participation in illicit redistribution and acquisition is impacted by the Affordable Care Act in the United States, which has enabled more Americans to obtain healthcare coverage but has not necessarily translated into prescription drug coverage.

    The study’s findings suggest that there are differences in the characteristics of individuals who acquire prescription drugs illicitly as compared to those who redistribute them and those who engage in both of these activities. As in previous literature on individuals involved in the illicit drug trade [63,64], predictors such as younger age and having legal access to prescription drugs in the past year describe all individuals involved in diversion behaviors in the study. Notably, those who redistribute prescription drugs perceive themselves to be less at risk of legal consequences related to their actions. As described in other literature [66], this may support the notion that lower perceptions of legal consequences may contribute to the acceptance of diversion and drug use behaviors. Although causal conclusions cannot be drawn from this correlational study, from a prevention perspective, educating the public about the illegality of drug diversion should be considered in future studies as a possible diversion deterrent. Future studies could also help further examine the motivations behind illicit acquisition and redistribution. Qualitative research of individuals who are involved in prescription drug diversion could help better understand such motivations [54] and lead to targeted interventions that could help discourage diversion [23].

    The present findings partially replicate past research on the association of demographic variables with diversion. For instance, the rates of illicit acquisition and redistribution in our sample with 22% reporting acquiring and 31% reporting redistributing were comparable to those of previous studies [23]. Furthermore, in this sample ranging in age from 18-82, the younger the participant was, the more likely they were to acquire and redistribute prescription drugs illicitly [24,50,85]. Recent evidence suggests thatyounger individuals (adolescents and young adults) calculate risk differently from older individuals [86], and future research shouldconsider howthe development of risk-taking perceptions and behaviors contributesto diversion. These findings also highlight the importance of targeting prevention and intervention strategies towards younger adults. In particular, because this study was conducted with Internet users, online and social media forums may be relevant platforms to reach younger individuals.

    In our examinations of group differences, White individuals were more likely to engage in illicit redistribution or both acquisition and redistribution but not solely acquisition of prescription drugs. These race/ethnicity differences were reported in some previous studies [56] but not others [60,62]. It is important to note, however, that although groups differed by race/ethnicity, this variable was not a significant predictor of membership in diversion categories in multivariate analyses. This suggests that other variables may be more important factors to examine when studying diversion behaviors. We also did not find that diversion behaviors differed by gender, although some past studies have found such differences [39,58,87,88]. For example, gender differences were observed in one study of in-person surveys conducted in public spaces [58]. It is likely that the discrepant findings are driven by the different methods used across studies, and are limited in this study in part because the sample was primarily female and gender was therefore not equally represented across diversion groups. The online survey method utilized in the present study may have contributed to reduced social desirability bias and may have elicited more honest responses than in-person interviews across a range of participants [89,90].

    An examination of group differences among diverter groups suggests furthermore that individuals engaging in both illicit acquisition and redistribution are more likely to reside in the New York City metropolitan area, be younger, be White, be students, be wealthier, and have licit prescriptions but no insurance coverage. They are also less likely to associate negative consequences with engaging in the illicit trade of prescription drugs. Although not all of these variables significantly predicted membership in the acquirer/diverter group in multivariate analyses, suggesting that differences in diversion behaviors may be driven by fewer variables, examination of diverter groups suggests that the acquirer/diverter group may have a unique profile as compared to other groups. Some of the characteristics of this profile, such as student status and being White, overlap with characteristics of individuals who are likely to engage in the trade of stimulant prescription drugs [54]. This could be a reflection of increasing prescription drug use and availability, for example, with stimulants in collegiate populations, as documented by other researchers [2,4,27,33,46,47,48]. However, the present findings are based on a sample of individuals who divert a range of prescription drugs and not solely stimulants. Overall, the findings suggest that individuals who engage in both acquisition and redistribution may be different from non-diverters and those who acquire or redistribute illicitly. This group that engages in both diversion behaviors should be examined more thoroughly in future studies.

    There are some limitations to the present study. The online recruitment of participants may have yielded a sample of individuals that does not fully represent the general population or the general substance abusing population in the United States [91]. Many demographic characteristics of the present sample do, however, corroborate extant research. For example, drug use tends to peak at an earlier age, and the population of drug users is more male dominated. Previous research also suggests that individuals with regular access to the Internet tend to be younger, White adults of higher socioeconomic status [92,93]. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that the demographics of Internet users in the United States have become more representative of the general population [94,95]. We are unaware of any research that specifically examines demographics of Craigslist users across U.S. metropolitan areas. Additionally, it is possible that those who engaged in both illicit acquisition and redistribution were more likely to take our survey because of self-selection in responding to an online research solicitation for a topic of personal relevance. Despite this possibility, the sub-sample of illicit redistributors was relatively small, limiting the strength of findings both within this group and across the sample. Future studies might find more effective strategies for Internet-based recruitment to garner a wider and more representative sample through the use of other websites or online platforms.

    Another limitation of this study is that legal perceptions of prescription diversion risk were conceptualized as a singular category. In other words, legal risks associated with different behaviors (i.e., buying, selling, trading, or giving away of prescription drugs) were not parsed out. Future studies could improve upon the content validity regarding this line of inquiry by asking about these diversion practices separately. Furthermore, subsequent diversion research that aims to better understand the perceived risks of these various practices should inform the design of more nuanced interventions.

    A particular strength of the present study is the use of the online survey approach to data collection, which may have minimized social desirability bias and has been shown to be useful in recruiting high risk samples. Online surveys are an efficient, cost-effective, and increasingly common research method [96] and are particularly useful for collecting data from high risk or stigmatized populations (e.g., drug users, sexual minorities) [89,97,98,99,100,101]. Some research also suggests that response rates of online surveys may be comparable to or higher than those for traditional survey methods such as phone or mail [100,102,103]. Furthermore, this type of research removes potential interviewer effects (i.e., social desirability) that can occur when attempting to collect data on sensitive topics during interviews [89,90]. Indeed, at least one study corroborated the validity of this method, which noted a higher reporting of substance use behaviors via a web-based survey compared to phone or mail [104].

    Another strength of our study is that much of the previous research on prescription drug diversion has focused on specific groups (e.g., college students, pain patients) or specific drugs (e.g., opioids, stimulants). By not limiting our study to a specific population or drug class, our study was able to conduct analyses across demographic groups and drug class. These findings are an important addition to the literature, as they show that various behaviors under the umbrella of drug diversion may differ across the wider population. Our findings also indicate that predictors of drug diversion vary across diversion behaviors. While this study does not explore motivations behind different diversion behaviors, future research on such motivations would better inform interventions for the prevention or mitigation of risk associated with these behaviors. Future research should also examine possible predictors of illicit acquisition and redistribution with respect to different drug classes. Inter-group comparisons of these behaviors would also help us better understand the motivators and pathways that drive prescription drug diversion in the United States.

    Acknowledgements

    We thank George De Leon, Greg Falkin, April Henning, and Andrew Rosenblum for their assistance with this project. The authors were supported as Postdoctoral Fellows in the Behavioral Sciences Training in Drug Abuse Research Program sponsored by Public Health Solutions and National Development Research Institutes with funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (5T32 DA07233). Points of view, opinions, and conclusions in this article do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Government, Public Health Solutions, or National Development and Research Institutes.

    Conflict of Interest

    All authors declare no conflict of interest in this article.

    [1] [ Hernandez SH, Nelson LS, (2010) Prescription drug abuse: Insight into the epidemic. Clin Pharmacol Ther 88: 307-317.
    [2] [ Arria AM, DuPont RL, (2010) Nonmedical prescription stimulant use among college students: Why we need to do something and what we need to do. J Addict Dis 29: 417-426.
    [3] [ Kroutil LA, Van Brunt DL, Herman-Stahl MA, et al. (2006) Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 84: 135-143.
    [4] [ McCabe SE, Teter CJ, Boyd CJ, et al. (2005) Nonmedical use of prescription opioids among U.S. college students: Prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addict Behav 30: 789-805.
    [5] [ National Drug Intelligence Center, National Prescription Drug Threat Assessment. Johnstown: National Drug Intelligence Center, 2009. Available from: http://www.justice/gov/archive/ndic /pubs33/33775/33775p.pdf
    [6] [ Novak SP, Kroutil LA, Williams RL, et al. (2007) The nonmedical use of prescription ADHD medications: Results from a national Internet panel. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2: 32.
    [7] [ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, (2013) Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of national findings. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
    [8] [ Compton WM, Volkow ND, (2006) Abuse of prescription drugs and the risk of addiction. Drug Alcohol Depend 83S: S4-S7.
    [9] [ Levi J, Segal LM, Miller AF, (2013) Prescription drug abuse: Strategies to stop the epidemic 2013. Washington, D.C.: Trust for America's Health.
    [10] [ Yu HE, (2012) The prescription drug abuse epidemic. Clin Lab Med 32: 361-377.
    [11] [ Zacny J, Bigelow G, Compton P, et al. (2003) College on problems of drug dependence taskforce on prescription opioid non-medical use and abuse: Position statement. Drug Alcohol Depend 69: 215-232.
    [12] [ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, (2008) National estimates of drug related emergency department visits. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
    [13] [ Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, et al. (2010) Monitoring the Future: National results on adolescent drug use. Bethesda: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
    [14] [ Office of National Drug Control Policy, Epidemic: Responding to America's Prescription Drug Abuse Crisis. Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011.Available from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/issues-content/prescription-drugs /rx_abuse_plan.pdf
    [15] [ Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Lugo Y, et al. (2007) The diversion of prescription opioid analgesics. Law Enforc Exec Forum 7: 127-141.
    [16] [ Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Cicero TJ, et al. (2009) The “black box” of prescription drug diversion. J Addict Dis 28: 332-347.
    [17] [ Cummings SM, Merlo L, Cottler LB, (2011) Mechanisms of prescription drug diversion among impaired physicians. J Addict Dis 30: 195-202.
    [18] [ Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Kurtz SP, et al. (2007) Mechanisms of prescription drug diversion among drug-involved club- and street-based populations. Pain Med 8: 71-183.
    [19] [ Chandra A, Ozturk A, (2004) Health professionals beware of prescription pain medication abuse. Hosp Top 82: 34-37.
    [20] [ Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Kurtz SP, et al. (2006) The diversion of prescription drugs by health care workers in Cincinnati, Ohio. Subst Use Misuse 41: 255-264.
    [21] [ Ibañez GE, Levi-Minzi MA, Rigg KK, et al. (2013) Diversion of benzodiazepines through healthcare sources. J Psychoactive Drugs 45: 48-56.
    [22] [ Rigg KK, March SJ, Inciardi JA, (2010) Prescription drug abuse and diversion: Role of the pain clinic. J Drug Issues 40: 681-702.
    [23] [ Beyene KA, Sheridan J, Aspden T, (2014) Prescription medication sharing: A systematic review. Am J Public Health 104: e15-e26.
    [24] [ Darredeau C, Barrett SP, Jardin B, et al. (2007) Patterns and predictors of medication compliance, diversion, and misuse in adult prescribed methylphenidate users. Hum Psychopharmacol 22: 529-536.
    [25] [ Hurwitz W, (2005) The challenge of prescription drug misuse: A review and commentary. Pain Med 6: 152-161.
    [26] [ Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Cicero TJ, et al. (2009) Prescription opioid abuse and diversion in an urban community: The results of an ultrarapid assessment. Pain Med 10: 537-548.
    [27] [ McCabe SE, Teter CJ, Boyd CJ, (2006) Medical use, illicit use and diversion of prescription stimulant medication. J Psychoactive Drugs 38: 43-56.
    [28] [ Vrecko S, (2015) Everyday drug diversions: A qualitative study of the illicit exchange and Non-medical use of prescription stimulants on a university campus. Soc Sci Med 131: 297-304.
    [29] [ Davis WR, Johnson B, (2008) Prescription opioid use, misuse, and diversion among street drug users in New York City. Drug Alcohol Depend 92: 267-276.
    [30] [ Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Cicero TJ, et al. (2010) Prescription drugs purchased through the Internet: Who are the end users? Drug Alcohol Depend 110: 21-29.
    [31] [ Jena AB, Goldman DP, Foster SE, et al. (2011) Prescription medication abuse and illegitimate Internet-based pharmacies. Ann Intern Med 155: 848-850.
    [32] [ Cicero TJ, Inciardi JA, (2005) Diversion and abuse of methadone prescribed for pain management. JAMA 293: 297-298.
    [33] [ Garnier LM, Arria AM, Caldeira KM, et al. (2010) Sharing and selling of prescription medications in a college student sample. J Clin Psychiatry 71: 262-269.
    [34] [ Rigg KK, Kurtz SP, Surratt HL, (2012) Patterns of prescription medication diversion among drug dealers. Drugs (Abingdon Engl) 19: 145-155.
    [35] [ Inciardi JA, Cicero TJ, (2009) Black beauties, gorilla pills, footballs, and hillbilly heroin: Some reflections on prescription drug abuse and diversion research over the past 40 years. J Drug Issues 39: 101-114.
    [36] [ Cai R, Crane E, Poneleit K, et al. (2010) Emergency department visits involving nonmedical use of selected prescription drugs in the United States, 2004-2008. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 24: 293-297.
    [37] [ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2011) Vital signs: overdoses of prescription opioid pain relievers: United States, 1999-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 60: 1487-1492.
    [38] [ Gilson AM, Ryan KM, Joranson DE, et al. (2004) A reassessment of trends in the medical use and abuse of opioid analgesics and implications for diversion control: 1997-2002. J Pain Symptom Manage 28: 176-188.
    [39] [ Mack KA, Jones CM, Paulozzi LJ, (2013) Vital signs: Overdoses of prescription opioid pain relievers and other drugs among women — United States, 1999-2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62: 537-542.
    [40] [ Joranson DE, Gilson AM, (2005) Drug crime is a source of abused pain medications in the United States. J Pain Symptom Manage 30: 299-301.
    [41] [ Berge KH, Dillon KR, Sikkink KM, et al. (2012) Diversion of drugs within health care facilities, a multiple victim crime: Patterns of diversion, scope, consequences, detection, and prevention. Mayo Clin Proc 87: 674-682.
    [42] [ Office of National Drug Control Policy, The economic costs of drug abuse in the United States, 1992-1998. Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2001. Available from: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/economic_costs98.pdf
    [43] [ Joranson DE, Gilson AM, (2006) Wanted: A public health approach to prescription opioid abuse and diversion. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 15: 632-634.
    [44] [ McCabe SE, Boyd CJ, (2005) Sources of prescription drugs for illicit use. Addict Behav 30: 1342-1350.
    [45] [ McCabe SE, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ, et al. (2007) Motives, diversion and routes of administration associated with nonmedical use of prescription opioids. Addict Behav 32: 562-575.
    [46] [ Rabiner DL, Anastopoulos AD, Costello EJ, et al. (2009) The misuse and diversion of prescribed ADHD medications by college students. J Atten Disord 13: 144-153.
    [47] [ Upadhyaya HP, Rose K, Wang W, et al. (2005) Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, medication treatment, and substance use patterns among adolescents and young adults. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 15: 799-809.
    [48] [ Arria AM, Garnier-Dykstra LM, Caldeira KM, et al. (2011) Prescription analgesic use among young adults: Adherence to physician instructions and diversion. Pain Med 12: 898-903.
    [49] [ Walker MJ, Webster LR, (2012) Risk factors for drug diversion in a pain clinic patient population. J Opioid Manag 8: 351-362.
    [50] [ Cicero TJ, Kurtz SP, Surratt HL, et al. (2011) Multiple determinants of specific modes of prescription opioid diversion. J Drug Issues 41: 283-304.
    [51] [ Inciardi JA, Cicero TJ, Munoz A, et al. (2006) The diversion of Ultram, Ultracet, and generic tramadol HCl. J Addict Dis 25: 53-58.
    [52] [ Monte AA, Mandell T, Wilford BB, et al. (2009) Diversion of buprenorphine/naloxone coformulated tablets in a region with high prescribing prevalence. J Addict Dis 28: 226-231.
    [53] [ McCabe SE, Teter CJ, Boyd CJ, (2004) The use, misuse and diversion of prescription stimulants among middle and high school students. Subst Use Misuse 39: 1095-1116.
    [54] [ Wilens TE, Adler LA, Adams J, et al. (2008) Misuse and diversion of stimulants prescribed for ADHD: A systematic review of the literature. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 47: 21-31.
    [55] [ Ali SE, Ibrahim MM, Palaian S, (2010) Medication storage and self-medication behaviour amongst female students in Malaysia. Pharm Pract 8: 226-232.
    [56] [ Petersen EE, Rasmussen SA, Daniel KL, et al. (2008) Prescription borrowing and sharing among women is fraught with potential health consequences. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 17: 1073-1080.
    [57] [ Daniel KL, Honein MA, Moore CA, (2003) Sharing prescription medication among teenage girls: Potential danger to unplanned/undiagnosed pregnancies. Pediatrics 111: 1167-1170.
    [58] [ Goldsworthy RC, Schwartz NC, Mayhorn CB, (2008) Beyond abuse and exposure: Framing the impact of prescription-medication sharing. Am J Public Health, 98(6), 1115-1121.
    [59] [ Hogan DJ, Moreland A, Lane P, et al. (1990) Exchange of prescription medications by dermatology outpatients. J Am Acad Dermatol 23: 953.
    [60] [ Goldsworthy RC, Mayhorn C, (2009) Prescription medication sharing among adolescents: Prevalence, risks, and outcomes. J Adolesc Health 45: 634-637.
    [61] [ Ellis J, Mullan J, (2009) Prescription medication borrowing and sharing — Risk factors and management. Aust Fam Physician 38: 816-819.
    [62] [ Ward L, Patel NM, Hanlon A, et al. (2011) Prescription medication borrowing among adult patients at an urban medical center. J Urban Health 88: 997-1014.
    [63] [ Altschuler DM, Brounstein PJ, (1991) Patterns of drug use, drug trafficking, and other delinquency among inner-city adolescent males in Washington, D.C. Criminology 29: 589-622.
    [64] [ Centers N, Weist M, (1998) Inner city youth and drug dealing: A review of the problem. J Youth Adolesc 27: 395-411.
    [65] [ Cicero TJ, Kuehn BM, (2014) Driven by prescription drug abuse, heroin use increases among suburban and rural whites. JAMA 312: 118-9.
    [66] [ Parker H, (2005) Normalization as a barometer: Recreational drug use and the consumption of leisure by younger Britons. Addict Res Theory 3: 205-215.
    [67] [ Alexa, Top sites in United States, 2014. Available from: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries /US
    [68] [ Grov C, (2012) HIV risk and substance use in men who have sex with men surveyed in bathhouses, bars/clubs, and on Craigslist.org: Venue of recruitment matters. AIDS Behav 16: 807-817.
    [69] [ Hughes JR, Fingar JR, Budney AJ, et al. (2014) Marijuana use and intoxication among daily users: An intensive longitudinal study. Addict Behav 39: 1464-1470.
    [70] [ Ramo DE, Hall SM, Prochaska JJ, (2010) Reaching young adult smokers through the Internet: Comparison of three recruitment mechanisms. Nicotine Tob Res 12: 768-775.
    [71] [ Siegel M, DiLoreto J, Johnson A, et al. (2011) Development and testing of an Internet-based survey instrument to measure the alcohol brand preferences of U.S. youth. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 35: 765-772.
    [72] [ Stueve A, O'Donnell L, Duran R, et al. (2001) Time-space sampling in minority communities: Results with young Latino men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health 91: 922-926.
    [73] [ Downing MJ Jr, Antebi N, Schrimshaw EW, (2014) Compulsive use of Internet-based sexually explicit media: Adaptation and validation of the Compulsive Internet Use Scale (CIUS). Addict Behav 39: 1126-1130.
    [74] [ Barchard KA, Williams J, (2008) Practical advice for conducting ethical online experiments and questionnaires for United States psychologists. Behav Res Methods 40: 1111-1128.
    [75] [ Birnbaum MH, (2004) Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Rev Psychol 55: 803-832.
    [76] [ Nosek BA, Banaji MR, Greenwald AG, (2002) E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the Internet. J Soc Issues 58: 161-176.
    [77] [ Baum, S, (2000) Drink driving as a social problem: Comparing the attitudes and knowledge of drink driving offenders and the general community. Accid Anal Prev 32: 689-694.
    [78] [ Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, et al. (2005) Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2004: Volume II, College students and adults ages 19-45. Bethesda: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
    [79] [ Lord S, Brevard J, Budman S, (2011) Connecting to young adults: An online social network survey of beliefs and attitudes associated with prescription opioid misuse among college students. Subst Use Misuse 46: 66-76.
    [80] [ Kilmer B, Everingham SS, Caulkins JP, et al. (2014) How big is the US market for illegal drugs? Santa Monica: RAND.
    [81] [ National Institute on Drug Abuse, Nationwide Trends. Bethesda: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2015. Available from: https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files /drugfacts_nationtrends_6_15.pdf
    [82] [ Garson GD, (2013) Missing values analysis and data imputation. Ashelboro: Statistical Associates Publishers.
    [83] [ Schafer JL, Graham JW, (2002) Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods 7: 147-177.
    [84] [ Sinharay S, Stern HS, Russell D, (2001) The use of multiple imputation for the analysis of missing data. Psychol Methods 6: 317-329.
    [85] [ Caviness CM, Anderson BJ, de Dios MA, et al. (2013) Prescription medication exchange patterns among methadone maintenance patients. Drug Alcohol Depend 127: 232-238.
    [86] [ Steinberg L, (2007) Risk taking in adolescence: New perspectives from brain and behavioral science. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 16: 55-59. [87] Back SE, Payne RL, Simpson AN, et al. (2010) Gender and prescription opioids: Findings from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Addict Behav 35: 1001-1007.
    [87] [88] Boyd CJ, McCabe SE, Cranford JA, et al. (2007) Prescription drug abuse and diversion among adolescents in a southeast Michigan school district. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161: 276-281.
    [88] [89] Rhodes SD, Bowie DA, Hergenrather KC, (2003) Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers. J Epidemiol Community Health 57: 68-73.
    [89] [90] Mustanski BS, (2001) Getting wired: Exploiting the Internet for the collection of valid sexuality data. J Sex Res 38: 292-301.
    [90] [91] National Institute on Drug Abuse, Trends in Prescription Drug Abuse. Bethesda: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2014. Available from: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports-prescription-drugs/trends-in-prescription-drug-abuse
    [91] [92] Jansen BJ, (2010) Use of the Internet in higher-income households. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
    [92] [93] Korgen K, Odell P, Schumacher P, (2001) Internet use among college students: Are there differences by race/ethnicity? Electronic Journal of Sociology 5.
    [93] [94] Perrin A, Duggan M, Americans' internet access: 2000-2015. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, 2015. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015
    [94] [95] Zickuhr K, Smith A, Digital differences. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, 2012. Available from: htpp://www.pewinternet.org/2012/04/13/digital-differences
    [95] [96] Dykema J, Jones NR, Piché T, et al. (2013) Surveying clinicians by web: Current issues in design and administration. Eval Health Prof 36: 352-381.
    [96] [97] Chiasson MA, Parsons JT, Tesoriero JM, et al. (2006) HIV behavioral research online. J Urban Health 83: 73-85.
    [97] [98] Grey JA, Kontan J, Iantaffi A, et al. (2015) An updated protocol to detect invalid entries in an online survey of men who have sex with men (MSM): How do valid and invalid submissions compare? AIDS Behav 19: 1928-1937.
    [98] [99] Hirshfield S, Schrimshaw EW, Stall RD, et al. (2015) Drug use, sexual risk, and syndemic production among MSM who engage in group sex encounters. Am J Public Health 105: 1849-1858.
    [99] [100] McCabe SE, Couper MP, Cranford JA, et al. (2006) Comparison of web and mail surveys for studying secondary consequences associated with substance use: Evidence for minimal mode effects. Addict Behav 32: 162-168.
    [100] [101] McCabe SE, (2008) Misperceptions of non-medical prescription drug use: A web survey of college students. Addict Behav 33: 713-724.
    [101] [102] Fleming CM, Bowden M, (2009) Web-based surveys as an alternative to traditional mail methods. J Environ Manage 90: 284-292.
    [102] [103] Shih T-H, Fan X, (2008) Comparing response rates from Web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods 20: 249-271.
    [103] [104] Link MW, Mokdad AH, (2005) Alternative modes for health surveillance surveys: An experiment with web, mail, and telephone. Epidemiology 16: 701-70.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Jason A. Ford, Corey Pomykacz, Alec Szalewski, Sean Esteban McCabe, Ty S. Schepis, Friends and relatives as sources of prescription opioids for misuse among young adults: The significance of physician source and race/ethnic differences, 2020, 41, 0889-7077, 93, 10.1080/08897077.2019.1635955
    2. Daniel A. Barber, Efren Casquejo, Purita L. Ybañez, Magdaleno T. Pinote, Luz Casquejo, Lucia S. Pinote, Magdalena Estorgio, April M. Young, Prevalence and correlates of antibiotic sharing in the Philippines: antibiotic misconceptions and community-level access to non-medical sources of antibiotics, 2017, 22, 13602276, 567, 10.1111/tmi.12854
    3. Donna Hallas, Robin Toft Klar, Julie A. Baldyga, Ilene Rattner, Ryan Waingortin, Jason Fletcher, Traditional and Nontraditional Collaborations to Improve Population Health Using Geospatial Information System Maps: Analysis of the Opioid Crisis, 2019, 33, 08915245, 309, 10.1016/j.pedhc.2018.10.006
    4. Buyisile Chibi, Neusa F. Torres, Zinhle P. Sokhela, Tivani P. Mashamba-Thompson, Risk factors for prescription drug diversion among people living with HIV: a systematic scoping review, 2020, 18, 1744-1609, 5, 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000167
    5. Mary Kathryn Irvine, Rebecca Zimba, Tigran Avoundjian, Meghan Peterson, Connor Emmert, Sarah G Kulkarni, Morgan M Philbin, Elizabeth A Kelvin, Denis Nash, Patient Education and Decision Support for Long-Acting Injectable HIV Antiretroviral Therapy: Protocol for Tool Development and Pilot Testing with Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Medical Case Management Programs in New York, 2024, 13, 1929-0748, e56892, 10.2196/56892
    6. Maria Felton Lowry, Julie Childers, Fast Facts and Concepts #484: Opioid Diversion Risk and Management in Palliative Care, 2024, 27, 1096-6218, 1090, 10.1089/jpm.2024.0196
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(6081) PDF downloads(920) Cited by(6)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Tables(4)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog