Validity of Drug Use Reporting in a High-Risk Community Sample: A Comparison of Cocaine and Heroin Survey Reports with Hair Tests

Abstract

Hair specimens were collected from 322 subjects and analyzed as part of an experimental study administering household surveys during 1997 to a high-risk community sample of adults from Chicago, Illinois. Toxicologic results were compared with survey responses about recent and lifetime drug use. About 35% of the sample tested positive for cocaine, and 4% tested positive for heroin. Sample prevalence estimates of cocaine use based on toxicologic results were nearly five times the survey-based estimates of past month use and nearly four times the survey-based estimates of past year use. With the hair test results as the standard, cocaine and heroin use were considerably underreported in the survey. Underreporting was more of a problem for cocaine than for heroin. Among those who tested positive, survey disclosure of cocaine use was associated with higher levels of cocaine detected in hair. In general, when recent drug use was reported, it was usually detected in hair. When a drug was detected in hair, use was usually not reported in the survey. When heroin was detected in hair, cocaine was almost always detected as well.

Race/Ethnicity Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Results from a Household Survey

“…[1][2][3][4][5] Of particular importance for researchers on health disparities in substance abuse problems and treatment is the likely possibility that reporting validity in surveys often varies by race/ethnicity. Thus far, the evidence for race/ethnicity variation in substance abuse reporting validity has been suggestive but not conclusive.…”

Factores de riesgo de recaída en pacientes drogodependientes tras desintoxicación hospitalaria

“…(2001) detectaron, en una muestra de pacientes dependientes de opiáceos, que el 72% de los pacientes seguían vinculados al año de seguimiento ambulatorio. Existen otros estudios que objetivan que el tipo de sustancia consumida parece no estar relacionado con la probabilidad de recaída en su consumo (Fendrich et al, 1999;Maddux et al, 1986;Murphy et al, 2010).…”

“…Además los pacientes con pobre motivación hacia el tratamiento y con escasa implicación familiar tienen mayor riesgo de recaída (Goeb et al, 2000;O'Brien y McLellan, 1996). Existe controversia respecto a qué tipo de sustancia, legal o ilegal, se asocia a mayor probabilidad de recaída (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar y Spiehler, 1999;Fischer et al, 2002;Maddux y Desmond, 1986;Murphy, Hser, Huang, Brecht y Herbeck, 2010). Tampoco hay acuerdo sobre las variables sociodemográficas (edad o género) (Goeb et al, 2000;Gottheil, Thornton, Skoloda, y Alterman, 1982;Swett et al, 1989;Xie et al, 2005) o los factores de personalidad (Cervera, Valderrama, Bolinches y Martínez, 1999;McMahon y Enders, 2009;Rubio, León, Pascual y Santo-Domingo, 1998;Rubio et al, 2007).…”

Case 35-2014

“…Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).…”