4.

Findings
Table 4.1

Frequency Distribution of Socio – demographic of respondents

n =60

Variable Frequency Percent

Class
16 26 43.3
17 25 41.7
18 9 15.0

Grade
11 30 50
12 30 50

Sex
Male 30 50
Female 30 50

Religion
Hindu 33 55
Christian 11 18.3
Buddhist 14 23.3
Muslim 2 3.3

Ethnicity
Dalit 17 28.3
Janajati 14 23.3
Brahmin 29 48.3

Education of Father
Illiterate 1 1.7
Primary level 1 1.7
Secondary level 16 26.7
Higher secondary level 42 70.0

Education of Mother
Illiterate 1 1.7
Can read and write 2 3.3
Primary level 5 8.3
Secondary level 26 43.3
 Higher secondary level 26 43.3

Occupation of father
Business 30 50
Government Service 9 15
Private sector 11 18.3
Agriculture 26 15.0
Household 26 1.7

Occupation of Mother
Business 25 41.7
Government Service 2 3.3
Private sector 11 18.3
Agriculture 10 16.7
Household 12 20.0

Status
Lower class 5 8.3
Middle Class 50 83.3
Higher class 5 8.3

Among 60 respondents, majority 43.3% were from 16 years old followed by

41.7% were of 17 years old and 15% were of 18 years. The study consist of
equal number of respondents from grade 11 and grade 12. The male and
female respondents are also equal in number for the study. The majority of
55% were from Hindu religion followed by 23.3% were from Buddhist and
least 3.3% from Muslim. The majority of 48.3 % were from Brahmin
ethnicity followed by 17% were from Dalit and least 14% from Janajati. The
majority of 70% respondents fathers literate from higher secondary level
followed by 26.67% were from secondary level and least 1.7% from primary
level. The majority of 43.3% respondents mothers literate from higher
secondary level followed by 8.3% were from primary level and least 1.7%
are illiterate. The majority of 50% respondents father were from
businessman followed by 18.3% were from private sector and least 1.7%
 from household. The majority of 41.7% respondents mother were from
businessman followed by 20% were from household and least 3.3% from
service. The majority of 83.3% were from middle class followed by 8.3%
were higher class and lower class.

Meaning of substance Abuse

Variables Pre – Test Post - Test

Frequency Percen Frequency Percent
t
Meaning of substance
Chemical compounds that affects mind and 27 45 60 100
body
Chemical compounds that decrease stress 18 30
increase confidence 12 20
Substance included
Tobacco 50 29.9 70 42.42
Smoking 44 26.3 53 32.12
Marijuana 25 15 25 15
Alcohol 43 25.7 17 10.30
Barbiturates 3 1.8
Most commonly abused substance
Tobacco 49 29.9 65 39.63
Smoking 45 27.4 57 34.75
Marijuana 23 14 25 15.24
Alcohol 37 22.6 18 10.97
Barbiturates 6 3.7
Amphetamines 4 2.4

Among 60 respondents, in pre – test 45% of respondents had knowledge that substance
abuse is a chemical compounds that affects mind and body and in post – test after
education intervention 100% respondent’s answered that substance abuse is a chemical
compounds that affects mind and body. Among 60 respondents, 29.9% answered that
tobacco is substance that is included in substance abuse and in post – test after education
intervention 42.42% respondent’s answered that tobacco is substance that is included in
substance abuse. Among 60 respondents in pre – test 27.4% answered that smoking is
commonly used as substance abuse and in post – test after education intervention 39.63%
respondent’s answered that tobacco is substance that is commonly used as substance
abuse.
 Table 4.3

Common age group for initiation of substance abuse

Variables Pre - Test Post - Test

Frequency Percen Frequency Percent
t
Common age group for initiation of
substance abuse

10-15 13 21.66
16 – 30 23 38.33 60 100
31 – 40 17 28.3
Above 40 years 7 11.7

Among 60 respondents, in pre – test 38.33% of respondents answered that 16 – 30 age

group falls under initiation of substance abuse and in post – test after education
intervention 100% respondent’s answered that 16 – 30 age group falls under initiation of
substance abuse.
 Table 4.4

Substance abuse

Variables
Frequency Percent
Family use substance
No 46 76.67

Yes 14 23.33
Substance use by family member
Cigarette 17 23.9

Chewing Tobacco 8 11.3

Alcoholic Product 38 53.5
Drugs 2 2.8
Marijuana 5 7.0
Others 1 1.4
Use any substance
No 46 76.7

Yes 14 23.3
Name of substance they use
Cigarette 8 53.3

Chewing Tobacco 1 6.7

Alcoholic Product 6 40.0

Among 60 respondents, 23.33% of respondents answered that family member use

substance whereas 76.67% answered that their family member doesn’t use substance
abuse. Among the respondents who answered their family use substance abuse states that
53.5% use alcoholic product and 23.9% use cigarette as substance abuse. Among 60
respondents 76.7% answered that they don’t use substance abuse whereas 14% answered
that they use substance abuse. Those respondents who answered they use substance abuse
, 53.3% are found using cigarette as substance abuse.
 Table 4.5

Methods and factors to obtain substance

Variable Frequency Percent

How did you get substance
My family member gave me 12 30.0
My friend gave me 2 5.0
I bought from shop 9 22.5
I Steal 9 22.5
Others 8 20
Factors influence to use substance
Friend 10 21.27
Parental habit 11 23.40
Curiosity 8 17.02
Advertisement 8 17.02
Neighborhood influence 6 12.76
Others 4 8.51

Among 60 respondents, 22.5% of respondents answered that they used to buy substance
from shop by them self whereas 30% answered that their family member provides them
substance. Among 60 respondents, 21.27% of respondents answered that they are
influenced by friend circle to use substance abuse whereas 23.40% answered that they are
influenced by their parental habit to use substance.
 Table 4.6

Reason to use substance

Variables Pre – Test Post - Test

Frequenc Percent Frequency Percent
y
Peer Pressure 14 14 25 22.12
Relief from tension 10 10 5 4.24
Satisfy Curiosity 11 11 38 33.62
To celebrate cultural and religious 40 40 10 10
For pleasure effect 25 25 8 9.4

Among 60 respondents, in the pre – test 40% of respondents answered that they use
substance for celebration of cultural and religious purpose and in post – test after
education intervention, 33.62% states that they use substance to satisfy their curiosity.

Table 4.6

Which substance does your family member use?

Variables Pre – Test Post - Test

Frequenc Percent Frequency Percent
y
Common route of administration of
drugs
Injection 38 33.6 45 39.82
Oral Injection 22 19.5 25 22.12
Inhalation 2 1.8 5 4.24
Smoking 51 45.1 38 33.62
Warning sign of substance use
drop in attendance and poor school 17 18.7 18 19.78
performance
unexplained need for money 24 26.4 28 30.76
frequently getting into trouble(fight and 43 47.3 45 49.45
illegal activities)
change in appetite and sleep pattern 4 4.4
tremors, slurred speech and impaired co- 3 3.3
ordination
Smoking can cause
lung cancer 50 83.3 60 100
lymph cancer 6 10.0
breast cancer 4 6.7
Long Term tobacco can cause
oral cancer 48 80.0 60 100
cervical cancer 8 13.3
bone cancer 3 5.0
lymph cancer 1 1.7
Long Term Marijuana can cause
lung cancer 25 41.7 60 100
lymph cancer 18 30.0
breast cancer 15 25.0
bone cancer 2 3.3

Among 60 respondents, in the pre – test 45.1% of respondents answered that smoking is
common route of administration of drugs for substance abuse and in post – test after
education intervention, 39.82% states that injection is common route of administration of
drugs for substance abuse. Among 60 respondents, in the pre – test 47.3% of respondents
answered that frequently getting into trouble is warning sign of substance use and in post
– test after education intervention, 49.95% states that frequently getting into trouble is
warning sign of substance use. Among 60 respondents, in the pre – test 83.3% of
respondents had knowledge that smoking can causes lung cancer and in post – test after
education intervention 100% of respondents had knowledge that smoking can causes lung
cancer. Among 60 respondents, in the pre – test 80% of respondents had knowledge that
long term tobacco can causes oral cancer and in post – test after education intervention
100% of respondents had knowledge that long term tobacco can causes oral cancer.
Among 60 respondents, in the pre – test 41.7% of respondents had knowledge that Long
Term Marijuana can causes lung cancer and in post – test after education intervention
100% of respondents had knowledge that Long Term Marijuana can causes lung cancer.
 Table 4.6 opiods abuse

Post - Test
Pre – test
N Percent Frequency Percent
Complication of opiods abuse
respiratory depression 19 27.9% 27 39.7
Convulsions 20 29.4% 23 33.82
Coma 17 25.0% 10 14.7
possible death 12 17.6% 8 11.76
long term use of barbiturates can
cause
respiratory arrest 14 21.2% 28 42.42

cardiac failure 18 27.3% 20 30.30

Coma 16 24.2% 8 12.12
possible death 18 27.3% 10 15.15
Harmful effects of amphetamines
Restlessness 13 18.6% 24 34.28
skin sores 24 34.3% 27 38.57
Convulsions 15 21.4% 10 14.28
possible death 18 25.7% 9 12.85

Among 60 respondents, in the pre – test 29.4% of respondents had knowledge that
complication of opiods abuse is convulsions whereas 27.9% states that respiratory
depression is one of the complication of opiods abuse and in post – test after education
intervention 39.7% of respondents had knowledge that respiratory depression is the major
symptom for opiods abuse whereas 33.82 states that convulsions is another major part of
opiods abuse. Among 60 respondents 27.3% had knowledge that long term use of
barbiturates can cause cardiac failure and in post – test after education intervention
42.42% had knowledge that long term use of barbiturates can cause respiratory arrest.
Among 60 respondents in pre – test, 34.3% had knowledge that skin sores is the harmful
effects of amphetamines in our body and in post – test after education intervention,
38.57% had knowledge that skin sores is the harmful effects of amphetamines in our
body.

Table 4.7
 Substance abuser treatment

Pre – Test Post - Test

Frequency Percent
Frequency Percent
Substance abuser can be
treated
11 18.3
No
Yes 49 81.7 60 100
Place for treatment
Hospital 24 40.0
Social club 18 30.0
Rehabilitation Center 6 10.00 60 100

Substance abuse can be

Prevented
8 13.3
No
Yes 51 85.0 60 100

Prevention of substance
abuse 8 13.3
Group support
Family support 18 30.0
Own self decisions 8 13.3 60 100

Rehabilitation support 16 26.7

Others 2 3.3

Among 60 respondents, 81.7% respondent’s have knowledge that substance abuser can
be treated and 18.3% of respondents doesn’t believe that substance abuser can be treated
and in post – test after education intervention, 60% had knowledge that substance abusers
can be treated. Similarly, 40% of respondents have knowledge that substance abuser can
be treated at hospital followed by 30% of respondents have knowledge that that substance
abuser can be treated at social club and 10% of the respondents have knowledge that
substance abuser can be treated at rehab center and in post – test after education
intervention, 100% had knowledge that substance abuser can be treated at rehabilitation
center. Among 60 respondents, 85% respondent’s have knowledge that substance abuse
can be prevented and in post – test after education intervention, 100% had knowledge
that substance abuse can be prevented. Among 60 respondents in pre - test, 30.0%
respondent’s states that family support helps in prevention of substance abuse and in post
– test after education intervention, 100% had knowledge that own self decision is major
factor to prevent from substance abuse.

Table 4.9: Pre – Test and Post - Test level of Knowledge

Knowledge Pre – test Post – Test

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Inadequate ( 0 – 49) 10 16.67 0
Moderate ( 50 – 74) 30 50.00 5 8.33
Adequate ( 75 - 100) 20 33.33 55 91.67

In pre –test majority of respondents 50.00% had moderate knowledge, 33.33% had
adequate knowledge and 16.67% had inadequate knowledge on effectiveness of
educational intervention on substance abuse.

In post – test majority of respondents 91.67% had adequate knowledge, 8.33% had
moderate knowledge and none had inadequate knowledge on effectiveness of educational
intervention on substance abuse.
Table 4.10: - Effectiveness of educational Intervention

Knowledge mean SD Calculated Tabulated P value

pair test pair test
Pre - test 16.52 2.34 19.41 2.08 0.00
Post - test 23.31 1.115

Above table showed average pre – test mean score among secondary level students found
to be 16.52 and after the education intervention post - test mean score was 23.31. The
standard deviation in pre and post test was 2.34 and 1.115 respectively. The mean score
difference is 6.79 and the p = 0.00 ( p – value 0.00 < 0.05) that mean there is significant
difference in knowledge.

The calculated t value is 19.41 which is greater than the tabulated value 2.08 hence the
alternative hypothesis ( Ht) of the presented study is accepted and null hypothesis is
rejected (H0). The result showed that there is statistically significant improvement in the
knowledge scores on effectiveness of educational intervention on substance abuse.