1. ↑http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/stoner-tutorials-properly-clean-bowl/
2. ↑http://stuffstonerslike.com/2017/02/how-to-get-resin-out-of-a-pipe/
3. ↑http://stuffstonerslike.com/2017/02/how-to-get-resin-out-of-a-pipe/
4. ↑http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/stoner-tutorials-properly-clean-bowl/
5. ↑http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/stoner-tutorials-properly-clean-bowl/
6. ↑http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/stoner-tutorials-properly-clean-bowl/
7. ↑http://stuffstonerslike.com/2017/02/how-to-get-resin-out-of-a-pipe/
8. ↑http://askmeclean.com/how-to-clean-a-glass-pipe/
9. ↑http://askmeclean.com/how-to-clean-a-glass-pipe/
10. ↑http://askmeclean.com/how-to-clean-a-glass-pipe/
11. ↑http://askmeclean.com/how-to-clean-a-glass-pipe/
12. ↑https://www.greenrushdaily.com/resin-sustainability-get-bowl/
13. ↑https://www.greenrushdaily.com/resin-sustainability-get-bowl/
14. ↑https://www.greenrushdaily.com/resin-sustainability-get-bowl/
15. ↑https://www.greenrushdaily.com/resin-sustainability-get-bowl/
16. ↑http://stuffstonerslike.com/2017/02/how-to-get-resin-out-of-a-pipe/

1. How To Get Crack Resin
2. How To Shoot Crack Resin Hits

Smoking - Stretch that Crack Resin Technique. I have gotten many a decent resin hit when scrounging. Jul 7, 2006 #7. Woodman A very strange person.

Yes you can shoot up crack you just have to add a citric acid to it because water wont disolve crack use a few drops of vinegar in a spoon with a 10 oe 20 dollar rock mix with plunger and filter with cotton draw up and iv it your good togo! But drugs are bad! Write it about smoking crack. The entire exposed crack is covered with the paste, leaving only the port holes uncovered. Inject the crack: Begin injecting at the lowest port on the wall and continue until the epoxy or urethane begins to ooze out of the port above it. That's the visual sign that the crack has been filled to that level.

Abstract

This article examines the behavioral practices and health risks associated with preparing crack cocaine for injection. Using an ethno-epidemiological approach, injection drug users (n=38) were recruited between 1999 and 2000 from public settings in New York City and Bridgeport, Connecticut and responded to a semistructured interview focusing on crack injection initiation and their most recent crack injection. Study findings indicate that methods of preparing crack for injection were impacted by a transforming agent, heat applied to the “cooker,” heroin use, age of the injector, and geographic location of the injector. The findings suggest that crack injectors use a variety of methods to prepare crack, which may carry different risks for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens. In particular, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic.

Introduction

Crack cocaine was first reported as an injectable drug in the United States in Chicago in 1996 (), and crack cocaine injection has since been reported in smaller cities, including Bridgeport, Connecticut (Kinzly, 1998), Austin, Texas (Community Epidemiology Working Group [CEWG], 1998), and Dayton, Ohio (Carlson, Falck, & Siegal, 2000) as well as San Francisco (Bourgois, Lettiere, & Quesada, 1997), Washington, D.C. (CEWG, 2000), and Boston (CEWG, 2000). The emerging practice of injecting crack cocaine merits particular attention since injection drug users (IDUs) of powder cocaine have been shown to be at greater risk for HIV infection than heroin injectors (). Despite the accumulating evidence that crack cocaine is being injected in cities across the United States, no studies have offered detailed descriptions of the practices used to prepare crack for intravenous injection – practices which may place IDUs at increased risk for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV, BBV, and HCV.

The fact that crack cocaine can be injected intravenously surprises many including experienced IDUs, drug treatment providers, and drug researchers – since crack was invented in the mid-1980s as a cheap, smokable form of cocaine (Fagan & Chin, 1990). However, some drug users prefer injection as a mode of administrating crack since injection often increases the intensity and duration of a crack high (Carlson et al., 2000). Additionally, the greater availability and lower costs associated with crack cocaine make it an alternative for IDUs who inject powder cocaine. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine has been injected for over a century, although initially for medicinal purposes and for the treatment of morphine and alcohol addiction (Freud, 1974).

Crack is a combination of cocaine hydrochloride, baking soda, and other adulterants which gives rise to a rock-like substance (Inciardi, 1987). Consequently, IDUs who seek to inject crack are faced with the problem of transforming the rock into a soluble form that can be pulled into a hypodermic syringe. Previous studies (; Kinzly, 1998; Carlson et al., 2000) have reported that injectors convert crack into a solution by using acids such as lemon juice and vinegar, but these reports do not specify the particular drug preparation details. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine is water soluble (Flynn, 1993) and can be prepared for injection without an acid. Rather, powder cocaine is typically prepared by adding water to powder and drawing the drug solution into a syringe. Hence, compared to powder cocaine, crack requires a different set of preparation practices to convert the drug into a soluble form.

Drug preparation practices are an important component of both HIV risk and protective behaviors. While the sharing of syringes has been identified as a primary means of transmitting HIV-1, HBV, and HCV (), ancillary injection paraphernalia, such as “cookers,” water, and filters have been found to be additional sources of risk for bloodborne pathogens (Koester, Booth, & Wiebel, 1990). For instance, cookers, the small bottle-cap type vessels used to prepare drugs, are often the most efficient containers to share drugs among injectors. Consequently, a cooker may be contaminated with HIV when it touches other paraphernalia used to prepare or inject drugs, such as a syringe, a filter, or water.

Recent ethnographic research demonstrated that cookers may also play a unique protective role in reducing exposure to bloodborne pathogens among IDUs. , who observed injectors preparing different forms of heroin, found that injectors of tar heroin commonly heated the cooker (also containing water) with a flame to transform the resin-like substance into an injectable solution, whereas injectors of powder heroin typically did not heat the cooker prior to injection. Laboratory studies modeling these observations revealed that heating a cooker introduced with HIV-1 isolates for 15 seconds or more reduced HIV-1 viability below detectable levels. Hence, an IDU who applies a flame to a cooker for 15 seconds or more may deactivate HIV contained in the cooker prior to pulling the drug solution into a syringe. Additionally, this research highlights how different forms of the same drug – powder vs. tar heroin – impact upon drug preparation practices, which may ultimately have implications for exposure to bloodborne pathogens.

In this article, we describe how crack – a hardened form of powder cocaine –is prepared for injection, the drug solutions injected, and the injection paraphernalia utilized based upon ethnographic interviews with samples of injectors living in New York City and Bridgeport, Connecticut. Additionally, we provide data on crack injection initiation, which may help to locate the emergence of crack injection as a new form of injection drug use.

Methods

This project applied an ethno-epidemiological approach to the study of drug use and health (; Clatts, Welle, & Goldsamt, 2001; Clatts, Welle, Goldsamt, & Lankenau, 2002). An ethno-epidemiological approach combines traditional epidemiological concerns for “agent,” “host,” and “environment” with an ethnographic focus on “meaning” and “context” (Agar, 1996). The data reported here were collected during the Phase I Community Assessment Process (CAP) (Clatts, Sotheran, Heimer, & Goldsamt, 1999) of a two-phased ethnographic study examining crack injection practices in nine cities across North America–Los Angeles, Tucson, Chicago, St. Louis, Toronto, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Bridgeport, and New York. In this article, we focus on specific findings from two cities: Bridgeport and New York.

The aims of the CAP were to gather information about the general prevalence of crack injection, identify subpopulations where crack injection occurred, and describe variability in the behavioral practices used to prepare and inject crack. We accomplished these objectives by interviewing community members and crack injectors in both New York and Bridgeport. Community members and professionals who interacted with crack injectors, such as staff at needle exchanges, drug treatment centers, and health departments, provided information about the general location of crack injectors in each city. We used this community mapping information to conduct targeted participant observation in parks and along city streets, and to conduct informal interviews with crack injectors at each venue. Ultimately, the combined mapping information and participant observation revealed variability in crack cocaine quality and form, drug preparation practices, and injector demographic characteristics. These dimensions of crack injection were further pursued in the development of the Key Participant Interview (KPI) – a 30-minute, semistructured interview focusing on crack injection initiation and the most recent crack injection event, including drug solutions injected and drug preparation methods employed. The primary enrollment requirement for a KPI was that an individual had injected crack within the past 60 days. Additionally, screening questions were used to ensure that injectors had recently prepared crack cocaine for injection as opposed to powder cocaine, for instance. Field notes and KPI data were recorded using pen and paper and converted into Microsoft Word files following each day of fieldwork.

Using participant observation and chain referral sampling methods, the lead author recruited 23 crack injectors (n=23) from a park and street setting in New York's Greenwich Village during 1999 and 2000. Additionally, 15 crack injectors (n=1 5) were recruited from two needle exchange sites in Bridgeport, Connecticut during 2000 – a public housing complex and a primary avenue in downtown Bridgeport. In New York, all injectors who met the enrollment and screening criteria agreed to participate in the study. In Bridgeport, one injector who met the study criteria refused to participate. Each interviewee received $10 for their participation in the study. All research procedures and protocols were approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Throughout most of this report, we aggregate the two smaller samples from New York (n=23) and Bridgeport (n=15) into a combined larger sample (n=38). We use the combined larger sample as the basis for our analysis, which is principally focused on describing variability across samples among crack injectors. Comparisons between injectors in New York and Bridgeport are not a primary analytical focus because of the small number of crack injectors interviewed in each city. However, we do present several meaningful contrasts between samples as a way to highlight variability among crack injectors. Additionally, similar to the formative ethnographic work reported from our other research studies () we only report descriptive information and statistics in this article – no individually quoted accounts of crack injection practices or behaviors are provided – since interviews were not tape recorded during this phase of the study.

Results

Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the two smaller samples of crack injectors and the combined larger sample. Compared to the New York sample, the most notable differences are that the Bridgeport sample is typically older (40 years old vs. 30 years old), Latino (73% vs. 4%), engaged in informal labor (53% vs. 17%), initiated crack injection at an older age (36 years old vs. 27 years old), and more recently injected crack (93% “past day” vs. 17% “past day”). In the combined sample, the typical crack injector is 36 years old, white, male, supported through informal illegal and legal activities, initiated injection drug use in late teens with heroin, initiated crack injection in his early 30s, and commonly injected crack within the past week. The following results are based upon the combined sample of 38 crack injectors.

Table 1

Figure 1 presents the year of crack injection initiation and the age at crack injection initiation. Figure 1 indicates that four injectors initiated crack injection as early as 1990 – the same year that crack injection was first reported in England (). This finding corroborates other reports that drug injectors in the United States first began experimenting with injecting crack in the early 1990s (Carlson et al., 2000). Additionally, the majority of injectors initiated crack injection since 1998 – particularly in 1999 and 2000 – indicating that crack injection continues to be an emerging practice in these two cities.

Figure 1 also presents age cohorts at crack injection initiation. The fact that many of the injectors initiated crack injection at a relatively young age – initiation began between the ages of 16 and 25 years old for 10 injectors – suggests that the practice of injecting crack is not limited to long-time, older injectors (Carlson et al., 2000). Rather, initiation into crack injection may begin at the same young age that other drugs are first injected, such as heroin or cocaine. For instance, one injector reported injecting crack in 1990 when he was 16 years old – soon after he first began injecting cocaine. Significantly, only one injector initiated their injection drug use career with crack. Rather, the vast majority of injectors in the sample initiated with heroin, transitioned into injecting cocaine, and eventually began shooting crack. The diverse age span at crack injection initiation depicted by Figure 1, including one 64-year-old man who initiated in 1999, indicates that injectors initiated crack injection at a range of ages. Additionally, the interview data indicated that situational factors, such as cost, quality, and availability of crack over powder cocaine, often impacted upon decisions to initiate crack injection.

How To Get Crack Resin

Figure 2 presents crack preparation methods used by injectors during their most recent injection of crack. Our analyses revealed three primary factors involved in preparing crack for injection: adding some agent, typically an acid, to neutralize adulterants comprising the crack; the absence or application of heat to the cooker; and the absence or addition of heroin to the crack solution. For instance, three injectors used fresh lemon juice to neutralize the crack, combined the solution with heroin, and heated the entire solution in a cooker with a lighter or match.

Regarding “agents” used by injectors to neutralize crack, readily available household items such as fresh lemon juice (n=12), lemon concentrate (n=5), and white vinegar (n=8) were the most commonly employed. Ascorbic acid (n=8) was only used by injectors in Bridgeport, who received it in powder form from the Bridgeport Needle Exchange as a harm reduction agent. Ascorbic acid is regarded as less harmful to veins compared to acids such as lemon juice and vinegar. None of the Bridgeport sample used lemon juice – only ascorbic acid and white vinegar. Among the New York sample who used an acid to transform crack into solution, all used fresh lemon juice or concentrate except for one injector who added white vinegar.

Regarding “heat and heroin combinations,” less than half of crack injectors (n=l 7) – “heat/heroin” (n=5) plus “heat/no heroin” (n=12) categories – applied a flame from a lighter or match to the cooker. While the duration of heat applied to a cooker was not recorded, this is a protective crack preparation practice since heating a cooker for 15 seconds or longer may deactivate HIV (). Among those injectors applying heat, most also added an acid, such as fresh lemon juice, concentrated lemon, ascorbic acid, or white vinegar. Mame complete rom sets. Injectors using ascorbic acid and acids from a bottle, such as white vinegar and concentrated lemon juice, also added water to dilute the concentrate. One injector transformed crack into solution applying only heat and water. Given the somewhat insoluble nature of crack, we hypothesize that this injector began with a more granular form of crack or some other atypical, more soluble form of crack. Five injectors applying heat to the cooker, including four who used an acid, also added heroin to the crack solution – a combination known as a “speedball.”

More than half of the injectors (n=21) – “no heat/no heroin” (n=8) and “no heat/ heroin” (n=13) – did not apply heat to the cooker. Rather, most converted the crack into a solution using some form of lemon juice, ascorbic acid, or vinegar. Thirteen of these injectors added heroin to the crack and acid mixture. Another four injectors used neither acid nor heat but rather converted crack using somewhat unique preparation practices. The first of these less commonly reported methods is called “washing” the crack (n=2). During this process, a rock of crack is placed in a small glass bottle, known as a “cooker bottle,” along with a small amount of water and baking soda. Heat is applied to the bottle, thereby separating the adulterants from the rock and leaving behind a gel-like substance containing a concentrated cocaine-based solution. The gel is then extracted by pouring it through a screen and placing it in a cooker (but not heated during the two events reported) before being injected. The other less common method reported, which we refer to as an “alcohol melt process” (n=2), consists of placing the crack on a mirror and then dabbing it with rubbing alcohol. The rock is then lit while tilting the mirror, which causes the cocaine to melt and ooze down the mirror. After extinguishing the flame, the crack remains are scraped and finely chopped with a razor blade and then are deposited into a cooker (but not heated during the two events reported) before being injected.

Significantly, the crack preparation methods employed by injectors varied by age. The majority of the injectors (11 out of 12) who used fresh lemon juice to transform crack were younger than 35 years old, whereas the majority of injectors (seven out of eight) who used white vinegar were older than 35. Also, the majority of the injectors who applied heat to a cooker (10 out of 17) were under 35 years old. Lastly, all of the injectors who either “washed” the crack or employed the “alcohol melt process” (four out of four) were older than 45 years old. Hence, in addition to living in different geographic regions, such as New York or Bridgeport, belonging to different injection cohorts may expose injectors to diverse crack preparation practices. In particular, older injectors may bring a range of knowledge and techniques from other drug using experiences to a new practice, such as crack injection.

Figure 2 also points to the fact that nearly half of the sample (n=1 8) – categories “heat/heroin” (n=5) and “no heat/heroin” (n=1 3) – combined crack and heroin in the same shot during their most recent injection of crack. “Speedballing” crack and heroin offered users a boosted injection for as little as $5 per rock of crack. An additional six injectors (n=6) shot heroin by itself either before or after their most recent crack injection. Furthermore, the interview data revealed that the entire sample (38 out of 38) regularly used natural or synthetic opiates – 34 injected heroin, two sniffed heroin, and two were on methadone maintenance. Hence, crack was commonly injected in the context of opiate use.

Discussion

A potential limitation to the study is the relatively small sample (n=38) upon which the findings are based. Additionally, combining two samples of crack injectors from different populations of injection drug users makes it difficult to generalize the findings across the study. Small, purposeful samples, which are common to qualitative research, however, are particularly useful when the research is focused on documenting an emerging phenomenon (Patton, 1990). Towards this end, a primary component of documenting a new phenomenon is to maximize the identification of variability on the behaviors of interests, such as crack preparation methods, which we attempted to accomplish by combining two diverse samples of crack injectors.

Our findings indicate that crack injectors employed a wide range of practices and materials to prepare crack for injection. When considering three key variables involved in preparing crack for injection – the absence or presence of an agent, heat, or heroin – we uncovered 16 different crack solutions out of 38 injectors. This finding of wide variability in crack preparation methods indicates that the practice of injecting crack had not become routinized across the sample of injectors in either city. Rather, crack preparation practices were innovative depending upon drug form, situational factors, and available materials. However, the use of certain preparation practices within specific geographic regions, e.g., using lemon juice in New York vs. ascorbic acid and vinegar in Bridgeport, indicates that an emerging body of drug preparation knowledge may develop from and be disseminated within local injection groups.

The wide variability in crack preparation practices also suggests potentially different risks of exposure to bloodborne pathogens among IDUs who inject crack. Our findings indicate that the age of the injector and geographic region may be important factors influencing drug preparation practices. In particular, younger crack injectors may be adopting preparation practices, such as applying heat to a cooker, that have been shown to be protective against infectious diseases (). It is unknown how acids, such a lemon juice, ascorbic acid, or vinegar, impact upon HIV viability in a cooker. Laboratory research (which will occur in the next phase of our study) is necessary to model varying drug preparation methods of crack solutions and to assess the effects of acid on the transmission of HIV, HBV, and HCV. Furthermore, the impact of acids on vein health should also be examined in future studies.

Our interviews revealed that heroin and other opiate use were pervasive among this sample – both at injection initiation and during the most recent crack injection. This is an important finding since it suggests that IDUs often injected crack to supplement heroin use. Future studies should compare two types of crack injectors – those who primarily inject crack with injectors who mainly shoot heroin – to understand whether preparation practices and injection risk behaviors differ between the two types of injectors. In this current study, it is difficult to discern whether IDUs who injected crack faced unique HIV risks above and beyond the risks associated with heroin injection alone. It is possible that some of the preparation practices associated with crack injection, such as heating a cooker or adding an acid to a cooker, may actually reduce the risks of transmitting bloodborne pathogens during injection events. Currently, it is unknown how the risk or protective practices associated with crack injection may interact with the injection practices common to heroin injection.

Conclusion

Given the unknown impact of crack preparation practices on the risks for exposure to bloodborne pathogens, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. While drug users have been injecting crack as early as 1990, crack injection is a hidden practice since few research studies or drug treatment providers ask injectors specifically about injecting crack. The fact that both young and older injectors initiated crack injection throughout the 1990s – increasingly in the late 1990s among this sample – indicates that crack injection remains an emerging practice that may expose new cohorts of injectors to infectious diseases.

How To Shoot Crack Resin Hits

These findings suggest that HIV service providers, outreach workers, and researchers should ask crack users about mode of administration since smoking is generally assumed. Without more detailed inquiries into the modes of administrating crack, crack injection is likely to remain a largely hidden practice. Consequently, IDUs who inject crack will fail to be identified and targeted for interventions designed to reduce the risk of transmitting bloodborne pathogens and other harms associated with preparation practices particular to crack injection.

Acknowledgments

Download film korea romantis terbaru 2015 subtitle indonesia. We would like to acknowledge the assistance offered by the Bridgeport Needle Exchange Program during data collection in Bridgeport, Connecticut. This research was conducted under the auspices of a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (RO1-DA12808) awarded to Michael C. Clatts.

References

• Agar M. Recasting the “ethno” in “epidemiology” Medical Anthropology. 1997;16:391–403. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bourgois P, Lettiere M, Quesada J. Social misery, and the sanctions of substance abuse: Confronting I-HV risk among homeless heroin addicts in San Francisco. Social Problems. 1997;44:155–173.[Google Scholar]
• Carlson RG, Falck RS, Siegal HA. Crack cocaine injection in the heartland: An ethnographic perspective. Medical Anthropology. 2000;18:305–323.[Google Scholar]
• Chaisson RE, Bacchetti P, Osmond D, Brodie B, Sande MA, Moss A. Cocaine use and HIV infection in intravenous drug users in San Francisco. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1989;261:561–565. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Clatts MC, Heimer R, Abdala N, Goldsamt L, Sotheran JL, Anderson KT, Gallo TM, Hoffer LD, Luciano PA, Kyriakides T. HIV-1 transmission in injection paraphernalia: Heating drug solutions may inactive HIV-1. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. 1999;22:194–199. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Clatts MC, Sotheran JL, Heimer R, Goldsamt L. Interdisciplinary research on transmission of blood-borne pathogens among drug injectors: Applications of ethnography in epidemiology and public health. In: Marshall P, Singer M, Clatts M, editors. Integrating cultural, observational, and epidemiological approaches in the prevention of drug abuse and HIV/AIDS. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1999. pp. 74–93. [Google Scholar]
• Clatts MC, Welle DL, Goldsamt LA. Reconceptualizing the interaction of drug and sexual risk among MSM speed users: notes oward an ethno-epidemiology. AIDS and Behavior. 2001;5(2):115–130.[Google Scholar]
• Clatts MC, Welle DL, Goldsamt LA, Lankenau SE. An ethno-epidemiological model for the study of trends in illicit drug use: Reflections on the 'emergence' of crack injection. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2002;13:285–295.[Google Scholar]
• Community Epidemiology Working Group (CEWG) Highlights and Executive Summary. Vol. 1. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1998. Epidemiologic trends in drug abuse. [Google Scholar]
• Community Epidemiology Working Group (CEWG) Highlights and Executive Summary. Vol. 1. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2000. Epidemiologic trends in drug abuse. [Google Scholar]
• Des Jarlais DC, Friedman SR, Stoneburner R. HIV infection and intravenous drug use: Critical issues in transmission dynamics, infection outcomes, and prevention. Review of Infectious Disease. 1988;10:151–158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fagan JA, Chin K. Initiation into crack and cocaine: A tale of two epidemics. Contemporary Drug Problems. 1990;16(4):579–618.[Google Scholar]
• Flynn JC. Cocaine: An in-depth look at the facts, science, history and future of the world’s most addictive drug. New York: Citadel Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
• Freud S. Uber coca. In: Byck R, editor. Cocaine papers. New York: Meridian; 1974. pp. 48–73. [Google Scholar]
• Hunter GM, Donoghoe MC, Stimson GV. Crack use and injection on the increase among injecting drug users in London. Addiction. 1995;90:1397–1400. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Inciardi JA. Beyond cocaine: Basuco, crack, and coca products. Contemporary Drug Problems. 1987;14:461–493.[Google Scholar]
• Johnson WA, Ouellet LJ. The injection of crack cocaine among Chicago drug users. American Journal of Public Health. 1996;86:266.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kinzly M. Crack injection in Bridgeport, CT: Prevalence, practices, and practical prevention. North American Syringe Exchange Convention VIII; Baltimore, MD: 1998. Apr, [Google Scholar]
• Koester S, Booth R, Wiebel W. The risk of HIV transmission from sharing water, drug mixing containers and cotton filters among intravenous drug users. International Journal of Drug Policy. 1990;1:28–30.[Google Scholar]
• Lankenau SE, Clatts MC. Ketamine injection among high-risk youth: Preliminary findings from New York City. The Journal of Drug Issues. 2002;32(3):893–906.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990. [Google Scholar]