A mixed-methods analysis of online NPS user discussion in Hungary

Abstract

Aim: Our study’s aim was to identify a method which can properly reveal the different layers of the novel psychoactive substances (NPS) phenomenon appearing in the online discussion fora. Besides (i) evaluating the extent of potential peer-help harm reduction within NPS fora discussants, we also aimed (ii) to understand the main purposes of NPS use among the discussion participants, (iii) to chart their knowledge of and attitude towards the legality of the substances traded and used and (iv) to explore the feelings and consumer decision making processes on the NPS market.

Methods: A mixed-methods analysis and a sequential explanatory strategy were applied on the dataset of Hungarian NPS discussion fora. The initial qualitative data collection, netnography and thematic analysis were carried out to reveal emerging topics.

Findings: The discussion’s main topic was vendor reliability and fraud, with more negative than positive phrases attached. Discussants showed low levels of literacy, weak knowledge of substance legality and inadequate resources to provide peer-help harm reduction. Drug use purpose was mainly to “escape from reality”, not positively toned recreation.

Conclusion: Efficient indicated prevention interventions and harm reduction measures are needed to target disadvantageous online NPS user groups having little or no resources for self-help.

Keywords:

• New psychoactive substances
• mixed-methods analysis
• drug user fora

Acknowledgements

Authors thank Imre Barczi and the team of Zurvey.io for their technical support.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This study was partially supported by the European Commission under the JUST/2013/ISEC/DRUGS/AG/6429 PROJECT EPS/NPS – Enhancing Police Skills concerning Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS).

This study was partially supported by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (Grant numbers: K109375, K111938). The funding institution had no role in the study design or the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.