Despite the many problems associated with crack use, little validated empirical evidence about the prevalence of crack cocaine exists. Researchers that track crack cocaine use have relied on self-reports to differentiate crack and powder cocaine. Prior research suggests that the accuracy of self-reports for the use of a variety of illicit substances is relatively low. To examine the validity of self-reports of crack use, this article employs a newly developed technology to detect specifically the presence of markers of crack cocaine in urine specimens. With a sample of 2327 arrestees from six cities that participate in the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, both face-to-face interview and urinalysis data were examined. Using a positive urinalysis result as the validity standard, we assessed the extent to which arrestees underreport crack cocaine use as compared to the use of marijuana, opiates,and methamphetamine. Logistic regression models were also de veloped to predict the factors that relate to underreporting. The results showed a considerable amount of underreporting for all the drug measures. In most cases, only about half the people who had a positive urinalysis test for drugs admitted using drugs. Overall, the least amount of underreporting occurred for the use of marijuana (63.6% told the "truth"), followed by methamphetamine (56.1% told the truth), crack (48.2% told the truth), and opiate (45.9% told the truth). Female crack users, as compared to male crack users, were more likely to admit using crack. Black arrestees were more likely to admit using crack than white or Hispanic arrestees. Arrestees with a history of prior drug treatment or a prior arrest, as compared to those without such histories, were more likely to admit using crack. The older the arrestee was, the more likely the arrestee would admit using crack. The more money an arrestee spent on drugs, the more likely the arrestee would admit using crack. Differences in underreporting were also observed across the six cities in this study. The implications of these findings for the monitoring of crack use are discussed.
Abuse of crack continues to be of major concern. Because of limits to biological testing, self‐report has been the only mechanism for distinguishing crack use from powder use. Researchers have reported that smoking crack generates unique pyrolysis products that are detectable in urine, but no study has addressed how these products could be used as the marker for crack use, neither has any study addressed how reliable is the detection technology. The National Institute of Justice has developed a project to address these issues. The project consisted of (1) interviews conducted with and urine specimens collected from 2327 adult arrestees; (2) development and validation of procedures for routine GC/MS confirmation of crack use; and (3) establishment of standard profiles for two crack pyrolysis products, anhydroecgonine methylester (AEME) and ecgonidine (ECD). We found that AEME and ECD could be detected in urine specimens for periods of up to 40 hours. Most importantly, we demonstrated that to accurately measure crack use both AEME and ECD are necessary. Our results indicated that nearly 31% of the specimens were positive for undifferentiated cocaine, of which more than 88% were positive for crack. This resulted in crack prevalence rates of nearly 31% for females and 27% for males. These results will be used to further monitor the crack epidemic and to provide information that can inform the development of public policy as it relates to this drug.
a comparison study. The project was designed to determine the consistency of the urinalysis results when the same urine specimens were analyzed by two independent laboratories.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.