Critical Appraisal of a Study on Illicit Drug Use Among Music Festival Attendees

This critical appraisal examines a study on the patterns and proportion of illegal drug utilization among young individuals attending music festivals, their attitudes towards drug-check services, and the possible influence of drug-check services on their behavior. The study's strengths, limitations, research design, methods, and results are analyzed.

Running head: CRITICAL APPRAISAL 1
Critical Appraisal
Name
Institutional Affiliation

CRITICAL APPRAISAL 2
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Part A
Authorship
1. Strengths and limitations of:
a. Authors’ expertise
The details of the authors in terms of qualification and affiliations are missing. This is a
major weakness in the study since it is increasingly hard to assess the expertise of the authors.
This makes the study limited as we cannot tell whether the work is done by authorized authors in
the field.
b. Possible conflicts of interest/ grounds for bias
There is possible conflict of interests of potential ground for bias highlighted in the study.
Each author contributed to this study based on assigned task and they all read and approved the
study for publication.
Study questions, hypothesis or aim
2. Aim/Question/Hypothesis/Justification for study
Aim: The research aimed at investigating patterns alongside proportion of illegal drug
utilization amongst the young individuals, their drug-check attitudes during festivals alongside
possible influence of drug-check service on envisioned behavior of usage of drug.
Hypothesis/Question: There is no expressly hypothesis or study questions highlighted in
this study. However, the hypothesis are implied and can be derived from the study aim. Thus, the
derived hypothesis for this study is that: Festival attendees remain increasingly
vulnerable/susceptible to detrimental consequences of using illicit drug.

CRITICAL APPRAISAL 3
Justification: Authors have justified their study by saying that despite the adoption of
drug checking as a mechanism to reduce harm that permits users of drug to check both illicit
drug’s purity and content, it, however, solely trailed globally, and yet the use of this strategy
stays a contentious matter in Australia. Authors have effectively presented a justification for this
study by showing that festival attendees remain susceptible to detrimental illicit drugs’ effects
and hence should be the targeted group for education and reduction of harm (Day et al., 2018).
Research Design
3. Research design: Quantitative survey stood used in this study. The structure and content of
survey got steered by the past studies on this topic alongside the research team members with
know-how in field of sexual health, alcohol alongside drug, public health alongside health
promotion. Every respondent got asked regarding demographics, use of illicit drug, alongside
drug-check service attitude (Day et al., 2018). The participants who presented a past record of
using such illicit drugs stood additionally probed regarding attitudes alongside apprehensions
towards purity and content of drug, efforts to finding out regarding content alongside purity of
drug previously taken, and the probability of utilizing a free-service to check drug. The gathered
data stood primarily quantitative excluding a single question (open-ended) that asked users of
drug the explanations for never endeavoring to determine drug purity alongside content where
applicable.
Justification: The research design was suitable for answering the question since it used
correct target for participants who are most vulnerable to illicit drug. Also, quantitative survey
questions used helped cover all the desired data for analysis to answer the study question.
Research Methods
4. Method for:

CRITICAL APPRAISAL 4
Participants Selection Method: The researchers collected data over two days at the
main Australian famous festival as fraction of well-known sexual HP stall. The subjects got
recruited on the basis of respective approximated ages (between 18 and 30 years). Participants’
information statement were given to subjects and got informed regarding what survey entailed
and the study purpose. All these were correctly done as required and this is a source strength for
data recruitment and data collection. The researcher treated the survey completion as a consent
(Day et al., 2018).
Data Collection: The data was correctly gathered by having the participants complete
paper-oriented cross-sectional survey anonymously which ensured confidentiality and
independently alongside privacy of the participants and also avoided any undue influence to
make participants fill their survey in any manner dictated by researchers. The survey were also
put in a closed box as additional mechanism to guarantee confidentiality. Moreover, the
researcher’s ensured privacy since they avoided any identifying information being collected thus
guaranteeing the subjects anonymity (Day et al., 2018). Moreover, it was rational of the
researchers to only approach subjects during the day to reduce possibility of subjects’
intoxication at the completion time and excluded when visibly intoxicated to ensure accurate and
credible information. It was also sensible to give no incentive to ensure no biasness in the
information given and also the decision to provide survey by standalone researcher unrelated to
health promotion stall ensured that participants questioned were promptly addressed as they
arose for valid and credible data. It was also effective to give participants the summary of drug
checking and what it could offer to make them informed.
Data Analysis:
Strengths and limitations

CRITICAL APPRAISAL 5
The authors used SPSS version 22 to comprehensively analyzed data. Chi-square test
were also performed and this effectively helped researcher establish the relationship amid
categorical factors alongside t-test for variables (continuous). Moreover, considering p-value of
<0.050 as statistically significant stood effective. It was also effective for the researchers to treat
missing data by excluding subjects from such question to avoid any errors. Coding open ended
question thematically was effective in identifying reasons for never trying to establish the drug
purity and content. Having two researchers to review the completed data was effective to create
coding scheme via subsequent discussion and building consensus (Day et al., 2018).
Results and Limitation
5. Results/conclusions answer study’s question
The results and conclusion answered the study question as expected and consistent with
previous findings. Majority of subjects that attended the festival aged between 18 and 30 had a
record of using illicit drug and favored the free drug checking service provision at festival. They
mostly agreed that outcome of checking drug would influence their respective behavior of using
drug. Such a finding contributes to discussion about whether or not checking services for drugs
might be playing a central role in harm decrease and HP programming for fledgling individuals
who are festivals attendees (Day et al., 2018).
Certain limitations impacted the findings application. For example, the research is only
anchored on convenience sample of attendees of festival and hence participants are never
probable to be general population representative (Day et al., 2018).

CRITICAL APPRAISAL 6
Part B
According to this scenario about Emily as a festival attendee besides potential drug
testing, the barriers and enablers to uptake findings of research is understandable. One of the
enablers is the kind of the sample and its ability to be a general population representative. Thus,
where the sample sufficiently represents general population it would be an enabler to uptake and
the reverse is true. Another factor is the consistency of the study findings to the past studies. If it
is consistent, it is an enabler otherwise it becomes uptake barrier.

CRITICAL APPRAISAL 7
References
Day, N., Criss, J., Griffiths, B., Gujral, S. K., John-Leader, F., Johnston, J., & Pit, S. (2018).
Music festival attendees’ illicit drug use, knowledge and practices regarding drug content
and purity: a cross-sectional survey. Harm reduction journal, 15(1), 1.