How to ask about the use of new psychoactive substances to increase the validity of results in self-report prevalence surveys
Language English Country Australia Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
32078202
DOI
10.1111/dar.13036
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- NPS checklist, new psychoactive substances, online survey, self-reported prevalence, validity,
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Substance-Related Disorders epidemiology MeSH
- Prevalence MeSH
- Surveys and Questionnaires * MeSH
- Psychotropic Drugs administration & dosage MeSH
- Data Collection methods MeSH
- Illicit Drugs MeSH
- Self Report MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Geographicals
- Czech Republic epidemiology MeSH
- Netherlands epidemiology MeSH
- Poland epidemiology MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Psychotropic Drugs MeSH
- Illicit Drugs 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.
See more in PubMed
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The challenge of new psychoactive substances. [Internet]. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2013 Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/NPS_2013_SMART.pdf.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. European drug report 2017: trends and developments [Internet]. Luxembourg: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2017 Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/4541/TDAT17001ENN.pdf.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Early-warning system on new psychoactive substances - operating guidelines. [Internet]. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007 Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_52451_EN_EWSguidelines2.pdf.
European Council. Council decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 may 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances [internet]. Council of the European Union, Official journal of the European Union, L 127/32, 2005. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32005D0387.
I-TREND. Popular NPS [Internet]. 2019. Available at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjVqNXqt7_mAhXGh1wKHZYuAsAQFjAAegQIAhAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i-trend.eu%2Fnps.htm&usg=AOvVaw0y6ugVUT89itnmoPvAG6Ka (accessed 20 September 2002).
World Health Organization. Mephedrone: critical review report [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014 Available at: https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/4_12_review.pdf.
Europol, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. EU Drug Markets Report: In-depth Analysis [Internet]. Luxembourg; 2016. Available from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/2373/TD0216072ENN.PDF
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. European drug report 2019: trends and developments [Internet]. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Luxembourg: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2019 Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/11364/20191724_TDAT19001ENN_PDF.pdf.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. European drug report 2018: trends and developments [Internet]. Lisabon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2018 Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/8585/20181816_TDAT18001ENN_PDF.pdf.
Corazza O, Demetrovics Z, Van Den BW, Schifano F. ‘Legal highs’ an inappropriate term for ‘novel psychoactive drugs’ in drug prevention and scientific debate. Int J Drug Policy 2013;24:82-3.
Corazza O, Valeriani G, Bersani FS et al. “Spice,” “kryptonite,” “black mamba”: an overview of brand names and marketing strategies of novel psychoactive substances on the web. J Psychoactive Drugs 2014;46:287-94.
Cadet-Taïrou A. New psychoactive substances: user profiles and practices, tendencies, issue 108 [internet]. 2016. Available at: https://en.ofdt.fr/BDD/publications/docs/eftaacw4.pdf (accessed 16 July 2018).
National Advisory Commitee on Drugs and Public Health Information and Research Branch. Drug use in Ireland and Northern Ireland 2010/2011: First results from the 2010/11 Drug Prevalence Survey [Internet]. 2011. Available at: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/16353/1/drug_use_ireland.pdf (accessed 14 January 2018).
The Gallup Organization. “Youth Attitudes on Drugs”, Flash Eurobarometer 330 [Internet]. 2011. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_330_en.pdf (accessed 28 January 2018).
Palamar JJ. “Bath salt” use among a nationally representative sample of high school seniors in the United States. Am J Addict 2015;24:488i91.
Palamar JJ, Barratt MJ, Coney L, Martins SS. Synthetic cannabinoid use among high school seniors. Pediatrics 2017;140:e20171330.
Palamar JJ, Barratt MJ, Ferris JA, Winstock AR. Correlates of new psychoactive substance use among a self-selected sample of nightclub attendees in the United States. Am J Addict 2016;25:400-7.
Palamar JJ, Acosta P, Calderón FF, Sherman S, Cleland CM. Assessing self-reported use of new psychoactive substances: the impact of gate questions. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2017;43:609-17.
de Matos EG, Hannemann T-V, Atzendorf J, Kraus L, Piontek D. The consumption of new psychoactive substances and methamphetamine analysis of data from 6 German Federal States. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2018;4:49-55.
Harrison L. Validity of self-reported drug use in survey research: an overview & critique of research methods. In: Harrison L, Hughes A, eds. The validity of self-reported drug use: improving the accuracy of survey estimates [internet]. Rockville: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research; 1997:17-36 Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/167339-167359NCJRS.pdf.
Darke S. Self-report among injecting drug users: a review. Drug Alcohol Depend 1998;11:253-63.
Palamar JJ, Shearston JA, Cleland CM. Discordant reporting of nonmedical opioid use in a nationally representative sample of US high school seniors. Am J Drug Alcohol Abus 2016;42:530-8.
Holbrook A, Cho YI, Johnson T. The impact of question and respondent characteristics on comprehension and mapping difficulties. Public Opin Q 2006;70:565-95.
Kroutil LA, Vorburger M, Aldworth J, Colliver JD. Estimated drug use based on direct questioning and open-ended questions: responses in the 2006 National Survey on drug use and health. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2010;19:74-87.
Belackova V, Pazitny M, Drapalova E et al. Assessing the impact of laws controlling the online availability of 25I-NBOMe, AH-7921, MDPV and MXE - outcomes of a semi-automated e-shop monitoring. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 2017;25:109-17.
Brunt TM, Atkinson AM, Nefau T et al. Online test purchased new psychoactive substances in 5 different European countries: a snapshot study of chemical composition and price. Int J Drug Policy 2017;44:105-14.
Heiervang E, Goodman R. Advantages and limitations of web-based surveys: evidence from a child mental health survey. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2011;46:69-76.
Barratt M, Ferris J, Palamar J, Zahnow R, Maier L, Winstock A. Moving on from representativeness: testing the utility of the global drug survey. Subst Abus Res Treat 2017;11:1-17.
Soussan C, Kjellgren A. Harm reduction and knowledge exchange-a qualitative analysis of drug-related internet discussion forums. Harm Reduct J 2014;11:25.
Chiauzzi E, DasMahapatra P, Lobo K, Barratt MJ. Participatory research with an online drug forum: a survey of user characteristics, information sharing, and harm reduction views. Subst Use Misuse 2013;48:661-70.
Krosnick JA. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl Cogn Psychol 1991;5:213-36.
Smyth JD, Dillman DA, Christian LM, Stern MJ. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opin Q 2006;70:66-77.
Pape H, Storvoll EE. Teenagers'“use” of non-existent drugs: a study of false positives. Nordic Stud Alcohol Drugs 2006;23:31-46.
Palamar JJ, Martins SS, Su MK, Ompad DC. Self-reported use of novel psychoactive substances in a US nationally representative survey: prevalence, correlates, and a call for new survey methods to prevent underreporting. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015;156:112-9.
Vicente P, Reis E. Using questionnaire design to fight nonresponse bias in web surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2010;28:251-67.
Kyriakou C, Pellegrini M, García-Algar O, Marinelli E, Zaami S. Recent trends in analytical methods to determine new psychoactive substances in hair. Curr Neuropharmacol 2017;15:663-81.
Rocchi R, Simeoni MC, Montesano C et al. Analysis of new psychoactive substances in oral fluids by means of microextraction by packed sorbent followed by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Drug Test Anal 2018;10:865-73.
Smith JP, Sutcliffe OB, Banks CE. An overview of recent developments in the analytical detection of new psychoactive substances (NPSs). Analyst 2015;140:4932-48.
Ciccarone D, Ondocsin J, Mars SG. Heroin uncertainties: exploring users' perceptions of fentanyl-adulterated and -substituted “heroin”. Int J Drug Policy 2017;46:146-55.
Giné CV, Espinosa IF, Vilamala MV. New psychoactive substances as adulterants of controlled drugs. A worrying phenomenon? Drug Test Anal 2014;6:819-24.