Substance use by social workers and implications for professional regulation

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore the prevalence and patterns of substance use among Canadian social workers. With legalisation of can professional regulatory bodies are pressed to consider implications of substance use for their members.

Design/methodology/approach

An online survey collected data about demographics and substance use prevalence and patterns. Statistical analysis involved pairwise comparisons, binary logistic regression models and logistic regression models to explore correlations between substance use and demographic and work-related variables.

Findings

Among the respondents (n=489), findings indicate that past-year use of cannabis (24.1 per cent), cocaine (4.5 per cent), ecstasy (1.4 per cent), amphetamines (4.3 per cent), hallucinogens (2.4 per cent), opioid pain relievers (21.0 per cent) and alcohol (83.1 per cent) are higher than the general Canadian population. Years of work experience and working night shift were significant predictors of total number of substances used in the past year. Use of a substance by a person when they were a student was highly correlated with use when they were a professional.

Research limitations/implications

Prevalence of substance use among social workers was found to be higher than the Canadian population; potential due to the anonymous nature of data collection.

Originality/value

This study has implications for social conceptualisations of professionalism and for decisions regarding professional regulation. Previous literature about substance use by professionals has focussed predominantly on implications for increased surveillance, monitoring, and disciplinary action. We contend that since substance use among professionals tends to be concealed, there may be exacerbated social misconceptions about degree of risk and when it is appropriate to intervene.

Citation

Kiepek, N., Harris, J., Beagan, B. and Buchanan, M. (2019), "Substance use by social workers and implications for professional regulation", Drugs and Alcohol Today, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1108/DAT-08-2018-0040