Co esponding au ho : I ene Esu
Copy igh © 2025 Au ho (s) e ain he copy igh o his a icle. This a icle is published unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion Liscense 4.0.
Pa e ns o subs ance use and cessa ion in en ions among you hs in in e nally
displaced pe sons camps and hos communi y in No heas e n Nige ia, 2021
Fa ima Lawan Buka 1, Aisha Aliyu Abul a hi 1, So e Ameh 2, Mohammed Abubaka Abiso 3, Chiamaka
Blessing Ugwuja 4 and I ene Esu 5, *
1 Depa men o Communi y Medicine, Uni e si y o Maidugu i, Bo no S a e.
2 Depa men o Communi y Medicine, Uni e si y o Calaba , C oss Ri e S a e.
3 Depa men o Family Medicine, Uni e si y o Maidugu i Teaching Hospi al, Bo no S a e.
4 College o Medicine, Uni e si y o Nige ia Teaching Hospi al, Enugu.
5 Depa men o Heal h P omo ion Educa ion and Beha io , A nold School o Public Heal h, Uni e si y o Sou h Ca olina,
USA.
Wo ld Jou nal o Ad anced Resea ch and Re iews, 2025, 26(02), 494-508
Publica ion his o y: Recei ed on 18 Ma ch 2025; e ised on 29 Ap il 2025; accep ed on 01 May 2025
A icle DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.30574/wja .2025.26.2.1513
Abs ac
In oduc ion: Fo ced displacemen leading o in e nal displacemen , especially in de eloping coun ies, is a g owing
global public heal h p oblem. The addi ional p esence o subs ance use and abuse among o ce ully displaced young
people wo sens he challenge by posing long- e m heal h, social and legal consequences o bo h subs ance use s and
he gene al public. A be e unde s anding o he pa e n and d i e s o subs ance use will be use ul o he p e en ion
and con ol o he menace among his ulne able popula ion. This s udy, he e o e, aims o assess and compa e he
p e alence and willingness o s op subs ance use among you hs in In e nally Displaced Pe sons (IDP) camps and hei
hos communi ies in Bo no S a e, Nige ia.
Me hods: A compa a i e c oss-sec ional s udy was conduc ed among you hs (15-29 yea s old) in IDP camps and he
hos communi ies in Maidugu i, No h-Eas Nige ia. A mul is age sampling echnique was used o ec ui esponden s
om hei households in o he wo s udy g oups. Alcohol, Smoking and Subs ance In ol emen Sc eening Tes (ASSIST),
and S ages o Changes Readiness and T ea men Eage ness Scale (SOCRATES) ins umen s, we e p e es ed and used o
assess he p e alence, ypes and pa e n o subs ance use, as well as willingness o s op subs ance abuse, ia
in e iewe -adminis a ion
Resul s: Th ee hund ed (300) esponden s we e su eyed, comp ising one hund ed and i y (150) each, om IDP
camp and hei hos communi ies. Male- o- emale a ios we e 1:0.85 o he hos and 1:0.67 o IDP s udy g oups. The
mean age was 21.9 ± 4.58 yea s (15-29 yea s), wi h signi ican ly younge esponden s in IDP compa ed wi h hos
communi ies. O e all 138 esponden s we e in ol ed in subs ance abuse, yielding a p e alence a e o 46.0%. The
p e alence o subs ance use among hos and IDP s udy g oups was 59.3% and 32.7%, espec i ely (p<0.05). Among
subs ance use s, he mean age a onse o subs ance use was 17.9 ± 3.6 yea s, wi h signi ican ly ea lie onse among IDP
compa ed wi h hos g oups (p<0.05). Also, he mean du a ion o subs ance use was 5.39 ± 3.3 yea s, bu wi h a
signi ican ly longe du a ion o use among IDP compa ed wi h hos g oups (p<0.05). Tobacco was he mos commonly
abused subs ance wi h high (15.2%) and mode a e (33.3%) deg ees o dependence, and a signi ican ly highe
p opo ion among IDP compa ed wi h hos g oups (p<0.05). In bo h g oups, he commones social means o aking
subs ances was wi h iends, who we e also he mos common in oduce s o subs ances o esponden s in bo h s udy
g oups. Mos subjec s had low le els o ecogni ion (94.9%), ambi alence (62.0%) and aking s eps (72.3%). Compa ed
wi h esponden s in he hos g oup, hose in he IDP g oup had a signi ican ly highe p opo ion o high deg ee o
aking s eps (20.4% s. 4.5%, p<0.05). Mul inomial eg ession analysis iden i ied age and male gende as he signi ican
Wo ld Jou nal o Ad anced Resea ch and Re iews, 2025, 26(02), 494-508
495
p edic o s o subs ance use (p<0.00). Fo e e y uni inc ease in age by one yea , he e was a 15% inc eased likelihood
o subs ance use. Mo e so, compa ed wi h emales, males had a 12.28 imes inc eased likelihood o subs ance use
(p<0.05).
Conclusion: The e is a high p e alence o subs ance abuse among you hs o ce ully displaced due o Boko Ha am
insu gency in No he n Nige ia. You hs should be gain ully employed and/o engaged in di e se o ms o capaci y-
building ac i i ies. Rehabili a ion se ices should be made a ailable in hos communi ies and IDP camps, o p o ide
heal h educa ion and counselling, owa ds p e en ion, ea men and con ol o subs ance use and i s consequences.
Keywo ds: Subs ance use; IDPs; Hos communi ies; Maidugu i
1. In oduc ion
The Wo ld Heal h O ganiza ion (WHO) de ines subs ance abuse as he ha m ul consump ion o psychoac i e
subs ances, such as alcohol and illegal na co ics. (1) An es ima ed 296 million people, o 5.8% o he wo ld's popula ion
be ween he ages o 15 and 64 yea s, used a leas one d ug in 2021. (2) Acco ding o p ojec ions, he p e alence o
subs ance use will ise by 11% globally and by 40% in A ica. (3) The menace o subs ance use and e en ual abuse has
been associa ed wi h high mo bidi y and mo ali y, wi h you hs using mo e d ugs han adul s, and ha ing highe le els
o use han in pas gene a ions. (3,4) An es ima ed 50% o people wi h subs ance use p oblems ha e been no ed o ha e
a leas one o m o men al heal h p oblem h oughou hei li e cou se. (5) In sub-Saha an A ica (SSA), alcohol is he
main psychoac i e subs ance p oduced, while cannabis is he main illici d ug cul i a ed and consumed. (6) The illici
d ug ade in Wes A ica is es ima ed a millions o US Dolla s. (7) Among se e al ac o s associa ed wi h he high
bu den o subs ance use, ulne abili y occasioned by con lic - ela ed o ced mig a ion is key.
Globally, o e 71 million indi iduals we e in e nally displaced ac oss na ions and con inen s. (8) Wi hin he las wo
decades, Nige ia has had a pe sis en a med con lic due o bandi y, kidnappings and he Boko Ha am insu gency,
mainly in he No h Eas egion. (9) In Nige ia, abou 2,388,703 people we e in e nally displaced. The Boko Ha am
insu gency s a ed in 2009 and has displaced mo e han 2.5 million people, he eby, c ea ing in e nally displaced
pe sons (IDP) camps in se e al communi ies mos ly in No he n Nige ia. This o ced displacemen po en ially inc eases
he isk o subs ance use, wi h un owa d men al heal h p oblems. The common men al heal h p oblems among pe sons
in IDP camps a e dep ession, pos - auma ic s ess diso de (PTSD), gene alized anxie y and panic a acks.
Consequen ly, s udies among displaced pe sons in di e se se ings ha e epo ed a ying a es o subs ance use,
anging om 31.8% in Pakis an o 20% in Nige ia. (10,11) The p e alence a e o subs ance use in no heas e n Nige ia
in 2017 was es ima ed a 13.6%. The ela ionship be ween men al illness and subs ance use has also been well
documen ed. (12,13) In 2013, he Uni ed Na ions on D ug and C ime (UNODC), he Eu opean Union (EU) and he
Nige ian go e nmen s a ed a p ojec aimed a educing subs ance abuse and c ime a e, which is being unded by he
EU and implemen ed by he UNODC. (14) In Nige ia, he Na ional D ug Law En o cemen Agency (NDLEA) and he
Na ional Agency o Food and D ug Adminis a ion and Con ol (NAFDAC) moni o possession and consump ion o
subs ance use. (15,16) These in e na ional and local agencies highligh he g owing p oblem o subs ance abuse and he
need o i o be cu bed. Despi e he e o s by in e na ional and local agencies o cu b he menace o abuse o subs ances,
subs ance use, d i en by insu gency, pe sis s in IDP camps. Also, he e is pauci y o da a on he p e alence o subs ance
abuse in he IDP camps in he a eas o insu gencies in no heas Nige ia. The e o e, he objec i e o his s udy is o
de e mine he p e alence o subs ance abuse and associa ed ac o s in he s udy se ing.
2. Ma e ial and me hods
2.1. S udy A ea
The s udy was conduc ed in Maidugu i, Bo no S a e communi y and in e nally displaced camps. Bo no S a e is si ua ed
in No heas e n Nige ia, and sha es bo de s wi h he h ee neighbou ing coun ies o Nige Republic, Chad, and
Came oun and he s a es o Adamawa, Gombe and Yobe in Nige ia. (17) Maidugu i has wo Local Go e nmen A eas
(Maidugu i Me opoli an Council and Je e). The LGA a e u ban wi h a popula ion o 749,123 acco ding o he 2006
census.(18) Wi h an annual g ow h a e o 3.2%, he popula ion is es ima ed a 1,180,617 in 2024. O he popula ion,
22.7% a e you hs (15-29 yea s) wi h 12.5% emales and 10.2%. (19)
The Boko Ha am insu gency s a ed in No h-Eas Nige ia in 2009 wi h abou 4 million people displaced om hei
homes due o he insu gency. This led o he c ea ion o IDP camps wi hin he s a e capi al. (20)
Wo ld Jou nal o Ad anced Resea ch and Re iews, 2025, 26(02), 494-508
496
The e a e 138 IDP camps in Maidugu i bu only eigh (NYSC camp, Bakasi camp, EYN Ch is ain Associa ion o Nige ia
Cen e camp, Mohammed Goni College o Legal and Islamic S udies (MOGCOLIS) camp, Teache ’s Village, S adium camp,
Fa m Cen e camp and Muna El Badawy camp) a e ope a ed and un by he go e nmen . Ini ially, he s uc u e o he
IDP camps was based on sena o ial dis ic s bu was la e me ged due o lack o a ailable space and logis ics. The e o e,
each camp has a ep esen a ion o se e al local go e nmen s. (21)
2.2. S udy Design
The s udy was a compa a i e c oss-sec ional s udy in ol ing you hs in IDP camps and in he hos communi ies.
2.3. S udy Popula ion and Du a ion
The s udy popula ions we e you hs aged 15-29 yea s li ing in IDP camps and he hos communi ies in Maidugu i, Bo no
S a e o a leas one yea .
2.4. Sample Size De e mina ion
The minimum sample size o de e mine a di e ence in subs ance use among you hs li ing in IDP camps and he hos
communi ies wi h a signi ican a he 5% le el and wi h a 90% chance o de ec ing he di e ence (powe ) was calcula ed
using he o mula o compa ison o wo p opo ions. (25) A e calcula ing and adding an allowance o 10% non-
esponse, a minimum sample size o 274 was inc eased o 300 esponden s o inc ease he powe o he s udy and o
be e gene aliza ion o he la ge populace.
2.5. Sampling Technique
A e Communi y En y, A Mul is age Sampling Technique Was Used To Selec 150 Responden s F om Hos
Communi ies And 150 Responden s F om IDP Camps Gi ing A To al O 300 Responden s. In The Selec ion O
Responden s F om The IDP Camps, Simple Random Sampling By Ballo ing Was Used To Selec Fou IDP Camps Ou O
The Eigh IDP Camps In Maidugu i. A P opo iona e Alloca ion Ra io O 3:1 Was Applied To Selec Th ee Camps F om
MMC (Bakassi, Teache ’s Village, And S adium) And One Camp F om Je e LGA (Fa m Cen e ). Sys ema ic Random
Sampling Was Used To Selec Households Wi hin The Chosen Camps. Wi hin Selec ed Households, One Eligible You h
(Aged 15-29) Was Chosen.
In The Hos Communi y, One Wa d Was Selec ed F om The 15 Wa ds In MMC (Shehu i No h) And One F om The 12
Wa ds In Je e LGA (Mai i) Using Simple Random Sampling By Ballo ing. One Se lemen Was Randomly Selec ed F om
Each Wa d: Gangama i In MMC And Goma i Cos in In Je e. Sys ema ic Random Sampling Was Used To Selec
Households. Wi hin Selec ed Households, One Eligible You h (Aged 15-29) Was Chosen.
2.6. Da a Managemen
A semi-s uc u ed in e iewe -adminis e ed ques ionnai e was used. This was adap ed om a WHO-designed
ins umen he alcohol, smoking and subs ance in ol emen sc eening es (ASSIST) and S ages o Changes Readiness
and T ea men Eage ness Scale 8d (SOCRATES). The la e is an expe imen al ins umen designed o assess eadiness
o change in alcohol /d ug use s. SOCRATES subscales in o accep able ange (ambi alence = 0.54; ecogni ion = 0.87;
aking s eps = 0.84). (22–24)
The da a we e cleaned by checking o any da a collec ion o coding e o s. Da a en y and analysis we e ca ied ou
wi h he aid o he In e na ional Business Machines-S a is ical Package o he Social Sciences (IBM-SPSS) Ve sion 21.0.
F equency dis ibu ions o he a iables we e de eloped. Means and p opo ions we e calcula ed, while associa ions
be ween a iables we e es ed using app op ia e s a is ical signi icance es s- - es , ishe ’s es , and chi-squa e.
2.7. Da a analysis plan
Da a collec ed was en e ed in o S a is ical Package o Social Sciences (SPSS) e sion 29.0 so wa e o analysis.
Desc ip i e analysis o he da a included absolu e and ela i e equencies o ca ego ical a iables while nume ical
a iables we e summa ized using means and s anda d de ia ions. Chi-squa e o Fishe ’s exac es was used o compa e
di e ences in p opo ions o ca ego ical dependen o ou come a iables and ca ego ical independen o p edic o
a iables. The cu -o poin o he uni a ia e logis ic eg ession (bi a ia e) analysis was se a a 5% signi icance le el.
Wo ld Jou nal o Ad anced Resea ch and Re iews, 2025, 26(02), 494-508
497
2.8. E hical Conside a ions
E hical app o al was ob ained om he E hics and Resea ch Commi ee o he Fede al Neu opsychia ic Hospi al,
Maidugu i. Pe mission and app o al o he esea ch we e also ob ained om he medical eme gency depa men o
he S a e Minis y o Heal h. P io o da a collec ion, he Bo no S a e Eme gency Managemen Agency (SEMA) was made
o be awa e o he esea ch, ia o icial no i ica ion o hei coun y o ice and app op ia e ep esen a i e(s) a he IDP
camps in Maidugu i, No h Eas Nige ia
3. Resul s
Da a was ob ained om h ee hund ed (300) esponden s comp ising one hund ed and i y (150) each om he IDP
camp and hei hos communi ies. In Table 1, in bo h s udy g oups, he e we e mo e males han emales, wi h a male-
o- emale a io o 1:0.85 (hos ) and 1:0.67 (IDP). Howe e , he di e ence in p opo ions was no s a is ically signi ican .
The mean age was 21.9 ± 4.58 yea s (15-29 yea s), wi h signi ican ly younge esponden s in IDP han in hos
communi ies (47% s. 24%, p<0.001)”. P ima y educa ion o lowe le el was mo e common among IDP (82.6% s
18.0%), while seconda y educa ion o highe was common among he hos g oup (82.0% s 17.4%, p<0.05). Mos
subjec s (215, 71.7%) we e single, wi h no signi ican di e ence in ma i al s a us compa ing s udy g oups. The e was a
signi ican ly highe p opo ion o a isans among IDP (54.7% s. 22.0% p<0.001) and s uden s among hos g oups (46.0
s.14.0 p<0.001). Sala ied wo k o a job was he mos ypical sou ce o income (65.3%), hough his was signi ican ly
mo e common among IDP (74.0% s 56.7 p<0.001), while he pa en al sou ce was mo e common among he hos g oup
(39.3% s 13.3%, p<0.001)
Table 1 Socio-demog aphic Cha ac e is ics o he Responden s (n=300)
Va iable
Hos n (%)
IDP n (%)
To al n (%)
Tes S a is ics
Gende
Male
81 (54.0)
90 (60.0)
171 (57.0)
Female
69 (46.0)
60 (40.0)
129 (43.0)
0.29
Age g oups (in yea s)
15-19
36 (24.0)
71 (47.3)
107 (35.7)
20-24
56 (37.3)
36 (24.0)
92 (30.7)
0.001*
25-29
58 (38.7)
43 (28.7)
101 (33.6)
Mean ± SD
22.9 ± 4.05
20.9 ± 4.88
21.9 ± 4.58
<0.001*
Educa ional le el
None
3 (2.0)
24 (16.0)
27 (9.0)
Qua anic
18 (12.0)
44 (29.3)
62 (20.7)
P ima y
6 (4.0)
56 (37.3)
62 (20.7)
<0.001⸸*
Seconda y
57 (38.0)
22 (14.7)
79 (26.3)
Te ia y
66 (44.0)
4 (2.7)
70 (23.3)
Ma i al s a us
Single
109 (72.7)
106 (70.7)
215 (71.7)
Ma ied
35 (23.3)
40 (26.7)
75 (25.0)
Di o ced/sepa a ed
5 (3.3)
2 (1.3)
7 (2.3)
0.57⸸
Widowed
1 (0.7)
2 (1.3)
3 (1.0)
Occupa ion
A isan
33 (22.0)
82 (54.7)
115 (38.3)
Wo ld Jou nal o Ad anced Resea ch and Re iews, 2025, 26(02), 494-508
498
S uden
69 (46.0)
21 (14.0)
90 (30.0)
Pe y ade
25 (16.6)
27 (18.0)
52 (17.3)
<0.001⸸*
D i e
10 (6.7)
8 (5.3)
18 (6.0)
Housewi e
9 (6.0)
1 (0.7)
10 (3.3)
Fa me
0 (0.0)
9 (6.0)
9 (3.1)
Whi e colla job
3 (2.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (1.0)
O he s
1 (0.7)
2 (1.3)
3 (1.0)
Main sou ce o income
Sala y/Job
85 (56.7)
111 (74.0)
196 (65.3)
Pa en s
59 (39.3)
20 (13.3)
79 (26.3)
Cha i ies
3 (2.0)
17 (11.3)
20 (6.7)
<0.001⸸*
F iends
2 (1.3)
1 (0.7)
3 (1.0)
O he s
1 (0.7)
1 (0.7)
2 (0.7)
⸸ Fishe ’s exac es *S a is ically signi ican
One hund ed and hi y-eigh (46%) esponden s abused subs ances wi h 49(33%) among IDPs and 89 (59%) among
hos communi ies.
Figu e 1 P e alence o Subs ance Abuse among you hs in IDP and Hos communi y
Subs ances ha we e commonly epo ed as e e used we e obacco (24.0%), opioids (19.3%) cannabis (17.0%) and
alcohol (Table 2). Fi e pe cen o less o esponden s epo ed e e using o he subs ances, including alcohol (5.0%),
cocaine (2.0%) and seda i es (2.0%), Compa ed wi h esponden s in IDP camps, hose in hos communi ies had a
signi ican ly highe p e alence o epo ing e e using opioids (26.7% s. 12.0% p<0.001), alcohol and (8.7% s. 1.3%
p<0.001), cocaine (4.0% s. 0.0% p<0.010).
Wo ld Jou nal o Ad anced Resea ch and Re iews, 2025, 26(02), 494-508
499
Table 2 E e abuse o subs ances by Responden s
Subs ances
IDP n (%)
Hos n (%)
To al n(%)
Tes S a is ics
Tobacco
Yes
34 (22.7)
38 (25.3)
72 (24.0)
0.590
No
116 (77.3)
112 (74.7)
228 (76.0)
Alcohol
Yes
2 (1.3)
13 (8.7)
15 (5.0)
<0.001⸸*
No
148 (98.7)
137 (91.3)
285 (95.0)
Cannabis
Yes
20 (13.3)
31 (20.7)
51 (17.0)
0.090
No
130 (86.7)
119 (79.3)
249 (83.0)
Cocaine
Yes
0 (0.0)
6 (4.0)
6 (2.0)
0.010⸸*
No
150 (100)
144 (96.0)
294 (98.0)
Seda i es
Yes
3 (2.0)
3 (2.0)
6 (2.0)
1.000⸸
No
147 (98.0)
147 (98.0)
294 (98.0)
Opioids
Yes
18 (12.0)
40 (26.7)
58 (19.3)
<0.001*
No
132 (88.0)
110 (73.3)
242 (80.7)
⸸ Fishe ’s exac es *S a is ically signi ican
Wi hin he las h ee mon hs o all esponden s, he mos equen ly used subs ances aken daily o almos daily we e
obacco (47.8%), cannabis (15.9%) and opioids (10.1%) (Table 3). This sequence is simila , conside ing esponden s in
he hos ( obacco:37%; cannabis:11.2%; opioids:10.1%) and IDP ( obacco:67.3%; cannabis:24.5%; opioids:10.2%)
g oups. Also, he e was signi ican ly mo e equen abuse o obacco and cannabis among esponden s in IDP compa ed
wi h hos g oups (p<0.05). The e was no signi ican di e ence in he equency o abuse o o he subs ances (p>0.05).
The daily o almos daily use o obacco (63% s 37%, p=0.010) and cannabis (25% s 11%, p=0.030) was signi ican ly
highe among IDPs han people in he hos communi ies. Howe e , he e we e no signi ican di e ences in he equency
o use o alcohol (p=0.150), cocaine (p=0.460), seda i es (p=0.110) and opioids (p=0.120).
Table 3 F equency o Subs ance abuse in he las h ee mon hs by Subs ance abuse s (n=138)
Subs ance
IDP n (%)
Hos n (%)
To al n (%)
Tes S a is ics
Tobacco
Ne e
15(30.6)
51(57.3)
66 (47.8)
Once/Twice
1(2.0)
1 (1.1)
2 (1.4)
Weekly
1(2.0)
2 (2.2)
3 (2.2)
0.010⸸*
Daily/Almos daily
32 (65.4)
35 (39.4)
67(48.6)
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138(100)
Alcohol
Ne e
47(95.9)
76(85.4)
123(89.1)
Wo ld Jou nal o Ad anced Resea ch and Re iews, 2025, 26(02), 494-508
500
Once/Twice
2 (4.1)
2 (2.2)
4(3.0)
Mon hly
0(0.0)
2(2.2)
2 (1.4)
0.150⸸
Weekly
0(0.0)
7 (8.0)
7 (5.1)
Daily/Almos daily
0(0.0)
2(2.2)
2 (1.4)
To al
49(100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
Cannabis (C)
Ne e
29(59.2)
58(65.2)
87 (63.0)
Once/Twice
1(2.0)
3(3.4)
4 (2.9)
Mon hly
3(6.1)
7(7.8)
10 (7.2)
0.030⸸*
Weekly
4(8.2)
11(12.4)
15 11.0)
Daily/Almos daily
12(24.5)
10(11.2)
22 (15.9)
To al
49(100)
89(100)
138 (100)
Cocaine (D)
Ne e
49 (100)
83(93.3)
132 (95.7)
Once/Twice0
0(0.0)
5(5.6)
5 (3.6)
Mon hly
0 (0.0)
1 (1.1)
1 (0.7)
0.46⸸
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
Seda i es (G)
Ne e
46 (93.9)
86 (96.7)
132 (95.7)
Mon hly
2 (4.1)
2 (2.2)
4 (2.9)
Weekly
1 (2.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.7)
0.11⸸
Daily/Almos daily
0 (0.0)
1 (1.1)
1 (0.7)
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
Opioids (I)
Ne e
31 (63.3)
49 (55.1)
80 (58.0)
Once/Twice
3 (6.1)
2 (2.2)
5 (3.6)
Mon hly
6(12.2)
9(10.1)
15 (10.9)
0.12⸸
Weekly
4 (8.2)
20 (22.5)
24(17.4)
Daily/Almos daily
5 (10.2)
9 (10.1)
14 (10.1)
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
⸸ Fishe ’s exac es *S a is ically signi ican
Table 4 shows he pa e n o subs ance abuse among subs ance abuse s. The mean age a onse o subs ance abuse was
17.9 ± 3.6 yea s p = 0.090, wi h signi ican ly ea lie onse among IDP compa ed wi h hos g oups (16.7 ± 4.0 yea s s
18.7 ± 3.2 yea s p<0.001). Also, he mean du a ion o subs ance abuse was 5.39 ± 3.3 yea s, bu wi h a signi ican ly
longe du a ion o abuse among IDP compa ed wi h hos g oups (6.3 ± 3.6 yea s s 4.9 ± 3.0 yea s p=0.020). In bo h
g oups, he mos common social means o aking subs ances was wi h iends (57.1% s 56.2%) who we e also he mos
common in oduce s o subs ances o esponden s in bo h s udy g oups (71.4% s 59.6%).
Wo ld Jou nal o Ad anced Resea ch and Re iews, 2025, 26(02), 494-508
501
Table 4 Pa e n o Subs ance abuse among Subs ance abuse s (n=138)
Va iable
IDP n (%)
Hos n (%)
To al n (%)
Tes S a is ics
Age a subs ance abuse (yea s.)
<10
3 (6.1)
1(1.1)
4 (2.9)
11-20
41 (83.7)
70 (78.7)
111 (80.4)
0.090⸸
>20
5 (10.2)
18 (20.2)
23 (16.7)
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
Mean ± SD
16.7 ± 4.0
18.7 ± 3.2
17.9 ± 3.6
0.001*
Du a ion o subs ance abuse (yea s.)
<5
23 (46.9)
58 (65.2)
81 (58.7)
6-10
20 (40.8)
27 (30.3)
47 (34.1)
>10
6 (12.)
4(4.5)
10 (7.2)
0.070⸸
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
Mean ± SD
6.3 ± 3.6
4.9 ± 3.0
5.39 ± 3.3
0.020⸸*
Means o aking subs ance
Indi idually
10 (20.4)
25 (28.1)
35 (25.4)
Wi h iends
28 (57.1)
50 (56.2)
78 (56.5)
0.222⸸
In g oup
11 (22.4)
11 (12.4)
22 (15.9)
O he s
0 (0.0)
3 (3.4)
3 (2.2)
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
Subs ance in oduce
F iends
53 (59.6)
35 (71.4)
88 (63.8)
Cu iosi y
13 (14.6)
7 (14.3)
20 (14.5)
Rela i e
15 (16.9)
4 (8.2)
19 (13.8)
0.45⸸
Fa he
1 (1.1)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.7)
B o he
4 (4.5)
0 (0.0)
4 (2.9)
D ug pushe
1 (1.1)
1 (2.0)
2 (1.4)
O he s
2 (2.2)
2 (4.1)
4 (2.9)
To al
89 (100)
49 (100)
138 (100)
⸸ Fishe ’s exac es *S a is ically signi ican
Table 5 shows ha mos subjec s had low le els o ecogni ion (94.9%), ambi alence (62.0%) and aking s eps (72.3%).
Compa ed wi h esponden s in he hos g oup, hose in he IDP g oup had a signi ican ly highe p opo ion o high
deg ee o aking s eps (20.4% s. 4.5%, p<0.001), he mean sco e was signi ican ly highe among esponden s in IDP
compa ed wi h hos g oup o ecogni ion (21.14 s. 18.35, p=0.040) ambi alence (12.7 s. 11.2 p=0.040) and aking
s eps (22.9 s. 18.1 p= 0.010).
Wo ld Jou nal o Ad anced Resea ch and Re iews, 2025, 26(02), 494-508
502
Table 5 Deg ee o Willingness o S op Subs ance Abuse using SOCRATES Sco es (n=138)
Subs ance
IDP n (%)
Hos n (%)
To al n (%)
Tes S a is ics
Recogni ion
Low (7-30)
46 (93.8)
84 (94.4)
130 (94.2)
Medium (31-33)
1 (2.0)
1 (1.1)
2 (1.4)
High (>34)
2 (4.2)
4 (4.5)
6 (4.4)
0.420⸸
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
Mean ± SD
21.14 ± 7.2
18.35 ± 7.5
19.35 ± 7.5
0.040*
Ambi alence
Low (4-13)
25 (51.1)
61 (68.5)
86 (62.3)
Medium (14-15)
7 (14.3)
12 (13.5)
19 (13.7)
High (16-20)
17 (34.6)
16 (18.0)
33 (24.0)
0.070
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
Mean ± SD
12.7 ± 4.0
11.19 ± 4.2
11.74 ± 4.1
0.040*
Taking s eps
Low (8-30)
29 (59.2)
71(79.8)
100 (72.5)
Medium (31-33)
10 (20.4)
14(15.7)
24 (17.4)
High (>34)
10 (20.4)
4(4.5)
14 (10.1)
0.001⸸*
To al
49 (100)
89 (100)
138 (100)
Mean ± SD
22.90 ± 10.8
18.07 ± 9.5
19.80 ± 10.2
0.010*
⸸ Fishe ’s exac es *S a is ically signi ican
Table 6 shows he bina y logis ic eg ession analysis was done o assess ac o s associa ed wi h subs ance abuse. E e y
uni inc ease in age by 1 yea , yielded 11% and 20% inc ease in he likelihood o subs ance abuse among esponden s
in hos (OR=1.11) and IDP (OR=1.20) g oups, espec i ely (p = 0.001). Compa ed wi h emales, males had a leas h ee-
and i e- old inc eased likelihood o subs ance abuse among esponden s in hos and IDP g oups, espec i ely
(p<0.001). Compa ed wi h esponden s om Kanu i ibe, hose om Babu -bu a and o he ibes, had 3.02 and 2.40
inc eased likelihood o subs ance abuse (p<0.05).
Table 6 Bina y logis ic eg ession o associa ion o ac o s wi h Subs ance Abuse (n=300)
Va iable
Hos Communi y
IDP camp
OR
95% CI
P- alue
OR
95% CI
P- alue
Age
1.11
0.97-1.94
0.001
1.20
0.87-2.04
<0.001
Gende
Females*
0.32
0.16-0.64
<0.001
0.05
0.02-0.17
<0.001
Males
3.09
1.57-6.08
<0.001
19.70
5.79-68.12
<0.001
Du a ion in comm./camp
0.95
0.90-0.99
0.04
1.02
0.85-1.23
0.80
T ibe
Kanu i*
Babu -bu a
1.12
0.42-3.00
0.82
3.02
1.35-6.76
0.01
