Underreporting of past-year cannabis use on a national survey by people who smoke blunts.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Substance abuse Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1080/08897077.2021.1941520
Austin Le, Benjamin H Han, Joseph J Palamar
{"title":"Underreporting of past-year cannabis use on a national survey by people who smoke blunts.","authors":"Austin Le,&nbsp;Benjamin H Han,&nbsp;Joseph J Palamar","doi":"10.1080/08897077.2021.1941520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background:</i> Accurate prevalence estimates are critical to epidemiological research but discordant responses on self-report surveys can lead to over- or underestimation of drug use. We sought to examine the extent and nature of underreported cannabis use (among those later reporting blunt use) from a national drug survey in the US. <i>Methods:</i> We used data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (<i>N</i> = 281,650), a nationally representative probability sample of non-institutionalized populations in the US. We compared self-reported prevalence of past-year cannabis use and blunt use and delineated correlates of underreporting cannabis use, defined as reporting blunt use but not overall cannabis use. <i>Results:</i> An estimated 4.8% (95% CI: 4.4-5.2) of people reported blunt use but not cannabis use. Although corrected prevalence, cannabis use recoded as use only increased from 15.2% (95% CI: 15.0-15.4) to 15.5% (95% CI: 15.3-15.7), individuals who are aged ≥50 (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.06-3.08), female (aOR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.62), Non-Hispanic Black (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.16-1.76), or report lower English proficiency (aOR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.40-7.83) are at increased odds for providing such a discordant response. Individuals with a college degree (aOR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84) and those reporting past-year use of tobacco (aOR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91), alcohol (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.33-0.54), cocaine (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73), or LSD (aOR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.31-0.87) were at lower odds of providing a discordant response. <i>Conclusion:</i> Although changes in prevalence are small when correcting for discordant responses, results provide insight into subgroups that may be more likely to underreport use on surveys.</p>","PeriodicalId":22108,"journal":{"name":"Substance abuse","volume":"43 1","pages":"349-355"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08897077.2021.1941520","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance abuse","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2021.1941520","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Accurate prevalence estimates are critical to epidemiological research but discordant responses on self-report surveys can lead to over- or underestimation of drug use. We sought to examine the extent and nature of underreported cannabis use (among those later reporting blunt use) from a national drug survey in the US. Methods: We used data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (N = 281,650), a nationally representative probability sample of non-institutionalized populations in the US. We compared self-reported prevalence of past-year cannabis use and blunt use and delineated correlates of underreporting cannabis use, defined as reporting blunt use but not overall cannabis use. Results: An estimated 4.8% (95% CI: 4.4-5.2) of people reported blunt use but not cannabis use. Although corrected prevalence, cannabis use recoded as use only increased from 15.2% (95% CI: 15.0-15.4) to 15.5% (95% CI: 15.3-15.7), individuals who are aged ≥50 (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.06-3.08), female (aOR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.62), Non-Hispanic Black (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.16-1.76), or report lower English proficiency (aOR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.40-7.83) are at increased odds for providing such a discordant response. Individuals with a college degree (aOR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84) and those reporting past-year use of tobacco (aOR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91), alcohol (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.33-0.54), cocaine (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73), or LSD (aOR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.31-0.87) were at lower odds of providing a discordant response. Conclusion: Although changes in prevalence are small when correcting for discordant responses, results provide insight into subgroups that may be more likely to underreport use on surveys.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在一项全国调查中,吸食大麻的人少报了过去一年的大麻使用量。
背景:准确的流行率估计对流行病学研究至关重要,但自我报告调查的不一致反应可能导致对药物使用的高估或低估。我们试图从美国的一项全国药物调查中检查少报大麻使用的程度和性质(其中包括后来报告的钝性使用)。方法:我们使用了2015-2019年全国药物使用和健康调查(N = 281,650)的数据,这是美国非机构人口的全国代表性概率样本。我们比较了自我报告的过去一年大麻使用和钝性使用的流行程度,并描绘了少报大麻使用的相关性,定义为报告钝性使用而不是总体大麻使用。结果:估计有4.8% (95% CI: 4.4-5.2)的人报告使用钝性大麻,但没有使用大麻。虽然校正了流行率,但大麻使用仅被记录为使用,从15.2% (95% CI: 15.0-15.4)增加到15.5% (95% CI: 15.3-15.7),年龄≥50岁(aOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.06-3.08)、女性(aOR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.62)、非西班牙裔黑人(aOR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.16-1.76)或报告英语水平较低(aOR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.40-7.83)的个体出现这种不一致反应的几率增加。具有大学学历(aOR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84)和报告过去一年使用烟草(aOR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91)、酒精(aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.33-0.54)、可卡因(aOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73)或LSD (aOR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.31-0.87)的个体提供不一致反应的几率较低。结论:虽然在纠正不一致的反应时,患病率的变化很小,但结果提供了对更有可能在调查中少报使用的亚组的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Substance abuse
Substance abuse SUBSTANCE ABUSE-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
88
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Now in its 4th decade of publication, Substance Abuse journal is a peer-reviewed journal that serves as the official publication of Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse (AMERSA) in association with The International Society of Addiction Medicine (ISAM) and the International Coalition for Addiction Studies in Education (INCASE). Substance Abuse journal offers wide-ranging coverage for healthcare professionals, addiction specialists and others engaged in research, education, clinical care, and service delivery and evaluation. It features articles on a variety of topics, including: Interdisciplinary addiction research, education, and treatment Clinical trial, epidemiology, health services, and translation addiction research Implementation science related to addiction Innovations and subsequent outcomes in addiction education Addiction policy and opinion International addiction topics Clinical care regarding addictions.
期刊最新文献
Cocaine Use is Associated With Increased LVMI in Unstably Housed Women With Polysubstance Use. Impact of Mandated Case Review Policy on Opioid Discontinuation and Mortality Among High-Risk Long-Term Opioid Therapy Patients: The STORM Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Improving DEIB in Addiction Medicine Training Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Program Evaluation. Advancing Proficiencies for Health Professionals in the Treatment of Tobacco Use Among Marginalized Communities: Development of a Competency-Based Curriculum and Virtual Workshop. Care Practices of Mental Health Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners Within an Interdisciplinary Primary Care Model for Patients With Substance Use Disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1