How to Address Workers' Substance Use at Work: Testing Effects of Workplace Policies

Background and Purpose:

Many previous studies on alcohol and other drugs (AOD) problems in the United States have focused on the factors that negatively affect workers’ behaviors or their individual and social perception on AOD use. However, they have not considered occupational contexts, such as workplace programs and policies. Since various AOD policies were specified to reduce workers’ risk behaviors concerning substance use and improve their occupational welfare, more interests are rising in terms of their effectiveness if they contribute to the reduction of workers’ substance use. Despite the interests, there is a lack of studies that assess the effects of workplace policies in the US.

In this regard, we need to explore positive roles of workplace policies to prevent workers’ AOD problems. Because workplace policies can affect the workers’ behaviors in the milieu of occupations, we explore if they help make safe working circumstances by regulating AOD use. We use the national survey data to explain the relationship between them. The goal of this research is to (a) demonstrate the prevalence of AOD use at work by workplace policies and (b) test the positive effects of policies on workers’ AOD use. While our study aims to prove the effects, we contribute to the field by specifying the impact on each AOD use.

Methods:

The current study uses a data set of 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), which is the annual survey to estimate drug use and mental illness. Multiple regressions estimate the relationship between workplace policies and workers’ substance use. We classify AOD into Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, other illicit drugs, and prescription drug misuse to explore specific effects of policies. Workplace policies consist of written policy, employee assistance, and test according to prior studies. We categorize the policies into four types depending on the number of policies, specifically, as none, one policy, dual policies, and all policies.

Results:

Sixteen percent of respondents replied that their workplaces do not have any policy regarding AOD, while forty percent reported that they have all policies. As to the prevalence of AOD use, alcohol use showed consistently high prevalence across the number of policies while the prevalence of marijuana, illicit drug, and prescription drug use decreased. In addition, we found workplace AOD policies predicted workers’ substance use to some degrees. After controlling for covariates including race, English fluency, and education, the workplace policies showed significant relationships to decrease the use of alcohol and marijuana.

Conclusions and Implications:

These findings provide the empirical support for the efficacy of AOD policies to deal with workers’ AOD problems. This study shows that the AOD policies are important predictors of both alcohol and marijuana use; however, there are not significant effects on other drugs, including cigarette, illicit drugs, and prescription drugs in case that workers already experienced them. Therefore, policies targeting workers who have used illicit drugs and prescription drugs can be useful to address their substance use.