Comparison of self-report and biological measures for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use in consecutive alcohol-dependent patients visiting a tertiary care centre

Jain, Raka; Quraishi, Rizwana; Majumder, Pradipta; Pattanayak, Raman Deep

doi:10.3109/14659891.2012.674625

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 24 ] However the absence of a valid and easily-obtainable biomarker that does not involve the participant providing a urine sample may render such an approach untenable. It is possible that the use of self-report only will underestimate current use of cannabis [ 24 – 26 ]; however there is also some evidence that self-report is an efficacious means of classifying current (or recent) exposure to cannabis among men of similar age to participants of the three included studies [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aetiology of testicular cancer remains elusive. In this manuscript, we review the evidence regarding the association between cannabis use and testicular cancer development.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we reviewed literature published between 1st January 1980 and 13th May 2015 and found three case–control studies that investigated the association between cannabis use and development of testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs).Results/ConclusionsUsing meta-analysis techniques, we observed that a) current, b) chronic, and c) frequent cannabis use is associated with the development of TGCT, when compared to never-use of the drug. The strongest association was found for non-seminoma development – for example, those using cannabis on at least a weekly basis had two and a half times greater odds of developing a non-seminoma TGCT compared those who never used cannabis (OR: 2.59, 95 % CI 1.60–4.19). We found inconclusive evidence regarding the relationship between cannabis use and the development of seminoma tumours. It must be noted that these observations were derived from three studies all conducted in the United States; and the majority of data collection occurred during the 1990’s.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1905-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is supported by the fact that individuals in substance use treatment tend to provide high rates of concordance about their use (Drake, 1998). Furthermore, while concordance rates are high in substance use treatment, these results appear to diminish when individuals are asked about substances that are not the target of treatment (Jain et al, 2013; Musshoff et al, 2006). These high rates of concordance may only apply to individuals who are currently being treated for a specific substance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some conditions are more highly scrutinized than others. The validity of self-reported substance use has been questioned in the literature by both medical professions and scientists for almost 50 years (e.g., Ball, 1967; Carroll, 1995; Daiter et al, 2007; Jain et al, 2013; Schuler et al, 2009; Wilcox et al, 2013). There are multiple reasons to expect a lack of concordance between self-reported substance use and biochemically verified substance use (e.g., urine drug screen assay; UDS, blood test, hair analysis).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the studies on concordance (e.g., Dillion et al, 2005; Jain et al, 2006; Jain et al, 2013; Melnikov et al, 2009; Schuler et al, 2009; Wilcox et al, 2013), including those in the Drake (1998) review, have examined patient samples that were presenting for an intake for substance use treatment, already in treatment for substance use, or had previously undergone treatment for substance use. It is possible that individuals who are not seeking treatment for substance use nor have a treatment history would be less inclined to provide accurate data about use in their self-report.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of non-concordant self-report of substance use in clinical trials research

Clark

Zyambo

et al. 2016

Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Studies comparing self-report substance use data to biochemical verification generally demonstrate high rates of concordance. We argue that these rates are due to the relatively high true negative rate in the general population, and high degree of honestly in treatment seeking individuals. We hypothesized that high risk individuals not seeking treatment would demonstrate low concordance and a high false negative rate of self-reported substance use. Methods A sample of 500 individuals from a smoking cessation clinical trial was assessed over 1 year. Assessments included semi-structured interviews, questionnaires (e.g. Addiction Severity Index, etc.), and urine drug screen assays (UDS). Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to predict false negative reports for various substances across the study and determine the influence of substance use on the primary study outcome of smoking cessation. Results Participants demonstrated high false negative rates in reporting substances use, and the false negative rates increased as the study progressed. Established predictors of false negatives generalized to the current sample. High concordance and low false negative rates were found in self-report of nicotine use. A small but significant relationship was found in for effect of biochemically verified substance use on smoking cessation. Conclusions Biochemical verification of substance use is needed in high risk populations involved in studies not directly related to the treatment of substance use, especially in populations with high threat of stigmatization. Testing should continue through the time period of the study for maximal identification of substance use.

show abstract

“…Clinicians continue to rely primarily on self-report over other methods to identify patients with substance dependence. Although analysis of drug metabolites provides a more objective measure of recent drug use (Bar-Oz et al, 2003; Jain, et al, 2013; Lange et al, 2014; Musshoff et al, 2006), biomarker testing poses several limitations in the clinical setting. Foremost are the complex ethical issues associated with screening in vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women (Lambert et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Information Among Pregnant Women

Garg

Garrison

Leeman

et al. 2015

Matern Child Health J

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This study assesses validity of self-report for the use of major classes of illicit drugs and opioid-maintenance therapy among pregnant women at a substance abuse treatment program. Methods Analyses used data collected from 83 pregnant women in a prospective cohort study at the University of New Mexico. Study participants with a history of substance abuse were screened and, if eligible, enrolled during an early prenatal care visit. A follow-up interview was conducted shortly after delivery. Self-reported information about drug use later in pregnancy was compared with urine drug screen (UDS) results collected during the third trimester. Simple kappa (k) and prevalence-and-bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) coefficients were calculated as the measures of agreement. Sensitivity and specificity of self-report for each drug class were estimated using UDS as the ‘gold standard’. Results The sample included a large proportion of ethnic minority (80% Hispanic/Latina and 7% American Indian) and socially disadvantaged (50% < less than high school education and 94% Medicaid-insured) pregnant women. On average, patients had 4.8 ± 3.0 urine drug screens during the third trimester. Sensitivity of self-report was low (<60%) for all classes of illicit drugs; however, marijuana and opioids demonstrated slightly higher sensitivity (57.9% and 58.3%, respectively) than other classes (<47%). Conclusions This study found substantial underreporting for all classes of illicit drugs among pregnant women in a substance abuse treatment program. Rates of underreporting are expected to be higher among the general population of pregnant women.

show abstract

Comparison of self-report and biological measures for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use in consecutive alcohol-dependent patients visiting a tertiary care centre

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The impact of non-concordant self-report of substance use in clinical trials research

Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Information Among Pregnant Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About