Importance and Effects of Education

Introduction

The chapters covered so far have highlighted various aspects of the study, beginning with the need, background, and relevant review of literature. The methodology and analysis of the data provide a better understanding and comprehension of these elements in simple terms. The chapter of discussion serves as a brief overview of the complete research process at a glance. The readers would be able to understand the study in a much better way if it is supported by a methodologically arranged sequence of findings and interpretations.

In a nutshell, the discussion chapter is the heart of the whole thesis, even though it is written at the end. The wise selection of words and an unembellished presentation of facts make the study more acceptable to the readers, simplifying the process.

Summary of the study

The present study was conducted in the month of November-December 2018 with an aim to assess the knowledge of adolescents about cannabis use disorder. The study also aimed to enlighten them with the facts regarding harmful use of cannabis, its effects on the body, mind, work performance, and social life through a psycho-educative module. It was a true experimental study with a pre-test-post-test-only design, including a control and an experimental group. A total of six schools within a 10 km radius, meeting the inclusion criteria, were selected. Two schools did not grant permission, so out of the remaining four, two were chosen through simple random sampling.

The populations of both schools were homogeneous. The total study population amounted to 1275. Stratified random sampling was implemented, dividing the accessible population into four strata as per their education level – class 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th standard students were placed into strata I, II, III, and IV respectively. Out of these, a sample of 260 was selected using proportionate sampling. A structured, non-standardized self-administered questionnaire of 20 MCQs, devised by the researcher and validated by various field experts, was used for data collection. The psycho-educative module used in the study was designed by the researcher. Its content was assessed for validity and reliability by a group of experts. The pre-test was conducted on day one for both groups, whereas the post-test of the control group was taken after three days. Psychoeducational instruction was then given to both groups together, followed by the post-test of the experimental group conducted seven days after the intervention.

The researcher adopted Maiman and Becker’s Health Belief Model. The Health Belief Model (HBM) is a psychological model developed to explain and predict health-related behaviors, particularly concerning the use of health services. In the present study, the model aids the researcher in elucidating how individual perceptions of cannabis use disorder guide their health-related behavior. Currently and in the future, the model will take into account their current family, peer group, exposure to media, and education level. These factors will ultimately decide their health-related behavior by either avoiding cannabis use or seeking treatment to reduce the effects of cannabis use that has already occurred, in light of an enhanced understanding of cannabis and its issues.

To support the study, an in-depth literature review was carried out. This review explored various substance use-related studies among adolescents across the world, with a special focus on those conducted in India. Emphasis was placed on studies relating to cannabis, its associated problems, management strategies, and the prevention of substance use disorders.

The present study focused on the knowledge of cannabis use disorders among adolescents aged 15 to 18 years. The effectiveness of the module was assessed by an increase in post-test scores after intervention. Additionally, the association of relevant socio-demographic data with the pre-test knowledge score was also evaluated.

Major Findings of the study-

• The sample belonging to the 15 to 16 years of age group comprised 68 (52.3%) in the experimental group and 75 (57.7%) in the control group. There were very few candidates of 18 to 19 years of age, with 6 (4.6%) in the experimental group and 4 (3.0%) in the control group.

• In the experimental group, 64 (49.2%) were male and 66 (50.8%) were female, whereas in the control group 78 (60.0%) were male and 52 (40.0%) were female.

• In the experimental group, 42 (32.3%) of the sample and 43 (33.1%) of the sample in the control group were in the 9th standard. The least number of samples were in the 11th standard, being 27 (20.8%) of the experimental group and 27 (20.8%) of the control group.

• As per the mother’s education level, 37 (28.5%) in the experimental group and 38 (29.2%) in the control group were graduates. A very low percentage, 4 (3.1%) of mothers, were educated until primary school in the experimental group, and 1 (0.8%) mother was illiterate in the control group.

• An equal number of fathers were graduates and postgraduates, 36 (27.7%), and 3 (2.3%) were educated until primary school in the experimental group. In the control group, 44 (34.8%) fathers were graduates and one (0.8) was illiterate.

• In the experimental group, 103 (79.2%) samples were from a nuclear family, 21 (16.2%) were from a joint family, and 6 (4.6%) were from an extended family. In contrast, 102 (78.5%) in the control group were from a nuclear family, 23 (17.7%) were from a joint family, and 5(4.0%) were from an extended family.

• In the experimental group, 47 (36.2%) samples and in the control group, 49 (37.7%) samples had a family monthly income above 50,000. Additionally, 16 (12.0%) samples had a monthly income. A significant number of samples, 112 (86.1%) from the experimental group and 96 (74.0%) from the control group, denied the presence of substance use by family, friends, relatives, and others. Conversely, 18 (13.9%) of the samples in the experimental group and 34 (26.0%) in the control group admitted that there is a substance use problem in the family, among relatives, friends, and significant others.

• Among the substance users (family, relatives, friends, others), 10 (55.6%) parents were using substances and 1 (5.6%) friend or significant other was involved with substances in the experimental group. In the control group, 21 (62.0%) parents and 2 (5.9%) significant others were using substances.

• Among all the substance users, the most commonly used substances were alcohol and tobacco, with 8 (44.4%) in the experimental group. Smoking tobacco was the least used substance, with 2 (11.2%) in the experimental group. There

• When assessing the previous knowledge of cannabis and its associated problems, 90 (69.2%) participants in the experimental group and 82 (62.8%) in the control group denied any previous knowledge. Conversely, 40 (30.8%) of the experimental group and 48 (37.2%) of the control group admitted that they knew about cannabis. The primary sources of information were books and the internet, with 9 (22.5%) respondents in the experimental group citing these. In the control group, television was mentioned by 13 (27.2%) of the respondents and movies by 12 (25.0%).

Did you like this example?

274

11