-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
How to ask about the use of new psychoactive substances to increase the validity of results in self-report prevalence surveys
E. Drapalova, V. Belackova, A. Cadet-Taïrou,
Jazyk angličtina Země Austrálie
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
32078202
DOI
10.1111/dar.13036
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- poruchy spojené s užíváním psychoaktivních látek epidemiologie MeSH
- prevalence MeSH
- průzkumy a dotazníky * MeSH
- psychotropní léky aplikace a dávkování MeSH
- sběr dat metody MeSH
- zakázané drogy MeSH
- zpráva o sobě MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Česká republika MeSH
- Nizozemsko MeSH
- Polsko MeSH
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.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc20028429
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210114153833.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210105s2020 at f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1111/dar.13036 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)32078202
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a at
- 100 1_
- $a Drapalova, Eva $u Department of Addictology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General Teaching Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a How to ask about the use of new psychoactive substances to increase the validity of results in self-report prevalence surveys / $c E. Drapalova, V. Belackova, A. Cadet-Taïrou,
- 520 9_
- $a 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.
- 650 _2
- $a sběr dat $x metody $7 D003625
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a zakázané drogy $7 D013287
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a prevalence $7 D015995
- 650 _2
- $a psychotropní léky $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D011619
- 650 _2
- $a zpráva o sobě $7 D057566
- 650 _2
- $a poruchy spojené s užíváním psychoaktivních látek $x epidemiologie $7 D019966
- 650 12
- $a průzkumy a dotazníky $7 D011795
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 651 _2
- $a Česká republika $x epidemiologie $7 D018153
- 651 _2
- $a Nizozemsko $x epidemiologie $7 D009426
- 651 _2
- $a Polsko $x epidemiologie $7 D011044
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Belackova, Vendula $u Department of Addictology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General Teaching Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Cadet-Taïrou, Agnès $u French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Paris, France.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00004925 $t Drug and alcohol review $x 1465-3362 $g Roč. 39, č. 3 (2020), s. 278-286
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32078202 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210105 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210114153830 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1608764 $s 1119609
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 39 $c 3 $d 278-286 $e 20200220 $i 1465-3362 $m Drug and alcohol review $n Drug Alcohol Rev $x MED00004925
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210105