↓ Skip to main content

“Overconfidence” versus “helplessness”: A qualitative study on abstinence self-efficacy of drug users in a male compulsory drug detention center in China

Overview of attention for article published in Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“Overconfidence” versus “helplessness”: A qualitative study on abstinence self-efficacy of drug users in a male compulsory drug detention center in China
Published in
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13011-016-0073-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Zhang, Bing Feng, Wenxiu Geng, Laurence Owens, Juzhe Xi

Abstract

Compulsory drug detention is the most frequent way to control drug use in China; however, it has often been criticized. This qualitative study aimed to investigate abstinence self-efficacy and its sources of drug users in a compulsory male drug detention center in Shanghai, China, and the attitudes of the drug users to this form of rehabilitation. Thirty-six participants were interviewed (semi-structured, in depth) about their history of drug use and rehabilitation, self-evaluation of addiction, motivations to abstain, plans for the future and attitudes toward rehabilitation. A thematic analysis was undertaken of the transcripts with responses to interview questions being coded for content. Two main types of self-efficacy were found - "overconfidence" (n = 16) and "helplessness" (n = 17). Overconfident participants underestimated their levels of addiction, overestimated their self-control and held external motivations and attributions. In contrast, helpless participants overestimated their levels of addiction, underestimated their self-control and had internal motivations and attributions. Compared to overconfident participants, helpless participants had more relapse history, and were more inclined to interpret relapse as a failure and attribute relapse to themselves. More helpless participants were abandoned by their family members, and received blame from the family members instead of encouragement, but their family members motivated them to abstain. Helpless participants experienced more negative emotions and had worse physical status. They said compulsory detention was a strong support for them and was the most effective way to abstain; while overconfident participants said compulsory detention was not necessary and not useful. It is important to increase the motivation of overconfident drug users and the perceived control of helpless drug users. Compulsory drug detention has strengths in supporting drug users who feel helpless to resist drug use. Adjustments and improvements of compulsory drug detention are suggested.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 14 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,719,611
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#282
of 670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,430
of 337,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.