Self reported alcohol intake in pregnancy: comparison between four methods

Abstract

Study objective-To assess the agreement between four diVerent measures of alcohol intake in pregnancy. Design and setting-Danish speaking pregnant women referred to the Midwife Centre in Aarhus, Denmark, for routine antenatal care were contacted at their first visit at approximately 15-16 weeks gestation from October to December 1998. The women were interviewed about current average alcohol intake and intake within the previous week, and subsequently filled in a two week diary on alcohol intake. When booking for delivery at the end of the first trimester the women were also asked to complete a questionnaire including a one item question on current average alcohol intake. Participants-Participants were 441 pregnant women. Main results-Per cent agreement ± 1 category ranged between 73 and 82. Mean (SD) intake ranged between 1.09 (1.35) drinks/week for diaries, and 0.69 (0.85) for questionnaires. Mean diVerences between methods were all close to zero. Three of the four measures yielded comparable distributions of average alcohol intake, but reports of intake within the past seven days seemed to be an inappropriate measure of average intake, yielding three times as many abstainers as expected when combining the methods. Conclusions-When assessing the distribution of alcohol intake in pregnancy or when studying adverse pregnancy outcomes that are probably caused mainly by sustained exposure it seems that for pregnant women with low to moderate alcohol intake diaries or an average measure from interviews or a simple one item questionnaire may be applied. A measure of intake for the previous week seems to be a relevant measure only when studying adverse pregnancy outcomes that are most probably caused by binge-like exposure. (J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:738-745)

Prenatal alcohol exposure and cortisol activity in 19-month-old toddlers: an investigation of the moderating effects of sex and testosterone

“…Although mothers tend to report higher alcohol consumption retrospectively than prospectively (during the antenatal period), the latter tend to be more accurate and correlate more closely to the children' neurobehavioral outcomes (Jacobson et al 2002). More generally, face-to-face interviews lead to higher reports of alcohol intake during pregnancy in comparison to self-report questionnaires, although prospectively collected 2 weeks diary may be more reliable (Kesmodel and Olsen 2001). We collected information regarding the maternal alcohol consumption at each trimester and offered different choices regarding the frequency of consumption.…”

Maternal alcohol drinking pattern during pregnancy and the risk for an offspring with an isolated congenital heart defect and in particular a ventricular septal defect or an atrial septal defect

“…However, the questions used in the DNBC were beverage-specific and included frequency as well as timing of binge drinking. More detailed questions on alcohol results in lesser degree of underreporting, but we expect pregnant women like others to underreport their alcohol consumption to some extent (Kesmodel and Olsen, 2001). In the absence of overreporting, even considerable underreporting will have little impact on the p values, especially when the number of nonexposed is large, although risk at reported drinking levels will be exaggerated (Verkerk, 1992).…”

Monthly Estimates of Alcohol Drinking During Pregnancy: United States, 2002–2011

“…Instead, the NSDUH offers cross-sectional snapshots of women assessed month by month during pregnancy. As discussed by others, misclassification error almost certainly is present, including differential misclassification to the extent that pregnant women might be less likely to disclose drinking, even in the context of an ACASI approach (Kesmodel & Olsen, 2001).…”