Mieczkowski Tom
Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue SOC 107, Tampa, FL 33620, USA.
J Clin Forensic Med. 2004 Jun;11(3):115-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jcfm.2003.10.007.
This article presents the results of drug screening done between 1985 and 1999 by a police department in a major eastern American city. Drug testing data is presented for civilians applying for the position of police officer in response to public solicitations, officers-in-training who are tested at the end of a two year training period, and "sworn" -- i.e., working officers in the field. The data includes test results for both urinalysis and hair analysis. The article compares the outcome in relationship to the intrinsic differences in time windows that the two testing technologies address, and assesses the efficacy of the technologies for detection of drug use, and the differences in detection rates attributable to each. The urinalysis findings show that of the three categories (police applicants, in-training officers, and working officers) applicants have drug-positive urinalyses about 2.8 times the rate of working police officers and at 16 times the rate for probationary officers. This pattern apparently holds true regardless of the size of the tested pool of personnel. Probationary officers in every case have the lowest rates of positive urine test results, applicants have the highest, and working officers occupy the middle ground. Hair analysis, which examines a larger time "window" than urinalysis, shows a higher prevalence rate than does urinalysis. The mean rate for hair analysis drug positive specimens was found to be 1.36 times that for urinalysis. Consistent with the urinalysis results, the applicant pool tested at rates 2-3 times higher when using hair analysis than the probationary officers.
本文介绍了美国东部一个主要城市的警察部门在1985年至1999年期间进行的药物筛查结果。报告了针对公开招聘的警察职位申请人、在两年培训期结束时接受测试的实习警察以及“宣誓就职”的在职警察的药物检测数据。数据包括尿液分析和毛发分析的测试结果。本文比较了两种检测技术所针对的时间窗口内在差异的结果，并评估了这些技术在检测药物使用方面的有效性，以及每种技术在检测率上的差异。尿液分析结果显示，在三类人员（警察申请人、实习警察和在职警察）中，申请人尿液药物检测呈阳性的比例约为在职警察的2.8倍，是见习警察的16倍。无论测试的人员群体规模大小，这种模式显然都成立。在每种情况下，见习警察的尿液检测阳性率最低，申请人最高，在职警察处于中间水平。毛发分析检测的时间“窗口”比尿液分析更大，其显示的阳性率高于尿液分析。毛发分析药物阳性样本的平均比例是尿液分析的1.36倍。与尿液分析结果一致，使用毛发分析时，申请人群体的检测率比见习警察高2至3倍。
