How to ask about the use of new psychoactive substances to increase the validity of results in self‐report prevalence surveys

Abstract

Introduction and Aims New psychoactive substances (NPS) represent hundreds of novel compounds. However, the general public might not be familiar with the overarching term NPS. This can result in both under‐ and over‐reporting of NPS use. Design and Methods The study analysed the last‐year prevalence of NPS use in an online survey conducted across I‐TREND project countries (the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Poland). Self‐reported NPS use was assessed within two types of questions—a generic and a checklist question. We analysed prevalence for each question separately, incorporated the free‐text probe ‘other’ that followed them, and combined the two questions into a conservative and an inclusive estimate. Results Including free‐text responses to the ‘other’ categories increased prevalence of NPS use (from 51% to 56% for the checklist question and 25% to 32% for the generic question). Taking an inclusive approach to estimating prevalence (i.e. indicating NPS use in either a generic list or from the checklist) yielded a higher prevalence estimate (60%, 95% confidence interval 58–62%), compared to a more conservative approach in which NPS use had to be affirmed by both questions (27%, 95% confidence interval 26–29%). Discussion and Conclusions Generic questions might lead to notably lower estimates of self‐reported NPS use in comparison to checklists. However, creating relevant checklists is challenging and lengthy survey instruments have limitations. Further surveys might benefit from featuring a combination of the strategies used in this study—a single (generic) question involving a number of locally specific NPSs and a free‐text ‘other’ probe.

Prevalence of Novel Psychoactive Substance (NPS) Use in Patients Admitted to Drug Detoxification Treatment

“…For determination of NPS use through face-to-face interviews we included several types and examples of NPS, and included the category “other NPS.” Such a combination of checklist and generic questions were found to reduce underestimation of NPS use ( 33 ). Still, it is conceivable that the actual prevalence of lifetime NPS use is higher than here determined, for example because patients are not always precisely aware about which novel substances they consume ( 20 ).…”

New psychoactive substances in Australia: patterns and characteristics of use, adverse effects, and interventions to reduce harm

“…Thus, it is recommended that where possible, future studies should endeavour to distinguish between NPS by asking about specific substances. This recommendation is supported by two studies, both of which showed that asking about individual substances resulted in higher response estimates than generic or 'gated' questions (which utilise skip logic, such that only a 'yes' response to use of a specific drug class will lead to more extensive queries of drug use in that class; Drapalova andBelackova, 2018, Palamar et al, 2017a). Given the large number of NPS available, guidance regarding the main NPS that require monitoring is essential.…”

Új szerek – új mintázatok?

“…Nincs egy átfogó kifejezés, a dizájnerdrog és főképp az ÚPSZ szakkifejezéseket maguk a használók nem feltétlen ismerik (esetleg tapasztalt, informált, kezelésen megjelent szerhasználók). Mind az alacsonyan iskolázottak, mind a szerek által okozott szellemi funkciók csökkenése miatt indokolt a célcsoport számára közérthető szókészletet, megfogalmazási formákat figyelembe venni, a szerek utcai nevét, szleng kifejezést használni 2 (Kaló et al, 2018;Drapalova, Belackova, & Cadet-Taïrou, 2020). (Arnold, 2014;Paksi, 2019).…”