Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 41–47 | Cite as

Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Information Among Pregnant Women

  • Mahek Garg
  • Laura Garrison
  • Lawrence Leeman
  • Ajna Hamidovic
  • Matthew Borrego
  • William F. Rayburn
  • Ludmila BakhirevaEmail author
Article

Abstract

Introduction

This study assesses validity of self-report for the use of major classes of illicit drugs and opioid-maintenance therapy among pregnant women at a substance abuse treatment program.

Methods

Analyses used data collected from 83 pregnant women in a prospective cohort study at the University of New Mexico. Study participants with a history of substance abuse were screened and, if eligible, enrolled during an early prenatal care visit. A follow-up interview was conducted shortly after delivery. Self-reported information about drug use later in pregnancy was compared with urine drug screen (UDS) results collected during the third trimester. Simple kappa (k) and prevalence-and-bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) coefficients were calculated as the measures of agreement. Sensitivity and specificity of self-report for each drug class were estimated using UDS as the ‘gold standard’.

Results

The sample included a large proportion of ethnic minority (80 % Hispanic/Latina and 7 % American Indian) and socially disadvantaged (50 % less than high school education and 94 % Medicaid-insured) pregnant women. On average, patients had 4.8 ± 3.0 urine drug screens during the third trimester. Sensitivity of self-report was low (<60 %) for all classes of illicit drugs; however, marijuana and opioids demonstrated slightly higher sensitivity (57.9 and 58.3 %, respectively) than other classes (<47 %).

Conclusions

This study found substantial underreporting for all classes of illicit drugs among pregnant women in a substance abuse treatment program. Rates of underreporting are expected to be higher among the general population of pregnant women.

Keywords

Pregnancy Drug use Self-report Validity 

Supplementary material

10995_2015_1799_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Babor, T. F., Steinberg, K., Anton, R., & Del Boca, F. (2000). Talk is cheap: Measuring drinking outcomes in clinical trials. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61(1), 55–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bakhireva, L. N., Cano, S., Rayburn, W. F., Savich, R. D., Leeman, L., Anton, R. F., & Savage, D. D. (2012). Advanced gestational age increases serum carbohydrate-deficient transferrin levels in abstinent pregnant women. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 47(6), 683–687. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/ags087.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bakhireva, L. N., Leeman, L., Savich, R. D., Cano, S., Gutierrez, H., Savage, D. D., & Rayburn, W. F. (2014). The validity of phosphatidylethanol in dried blood spots of newborns for the identification of prenatal alcohol exposure. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 38(4), 1078–1085. doi: 10.1111/acer.12349.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bar-Oz, B., Klein, J., Karaskov, T., & Koren, G. (2003). Comparison of meconium and neonatal hair analysis for detection of gestational exposure to drugs of abuse. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 88(2), F98–f100.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bibb, K. W., Stewart, D., Walker, J. R., Cook, V. D., & Wagener, R. E. (1994). Drug screening in newborns and mothers using meconium samples, paired urine samples, and interviews. Journal of Perinatology: Official Journal of the California Perinatal Association, 15(3), 199–202.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlson, R. (2014). A gap in the criminal justice system, creating a new class of felons in pregnant drug-addicted women, a state-by-state analysis. Mississippi Law Journal Supra, 83, 71–100.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chermack, S. T., Roll, J., Reilly, M., Davis, L., Kilaru, U., & Grabowski, J. (2000). Comparison of patient self-reports and urinalysis results obtained under naturalistic methadone treatment conditions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 59(1), 43–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christmas, J. T., Knisely, J. S., Dawson, K. S., Dinsmoor, M. J., Weber, S. E., & Schnoll, S. H. (1992). Comparison of questionnaire screening and urine toxicology for detection of pregnancy complicated by substance use. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 80(5), 750–754.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Del Boca, F. K., & Noll, J. A. (2000). Truth or consequences: The validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions. Addiction, 95(Suppl 3), S347–S360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delaney-Black, V., Chiodo, L. M., Hannigan, J. H., Greenwald, M. K., Janisse, J., Patterson, G., & Sokol, R. J. (2010). Just say “I don’t”: Lack of concordance between teen report and biological measures of drug use. Pediatrics, 126(5), 887–893. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-3059.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Desai, R. J., Hernandez-Diaz, S., Bateman, B. T., & Huybrechts, K. F. (2014). Increase in prescription opioid use during pregnancy among medicaid-enrolled women. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 123(5), 997–1002.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El Marroun, H., Tiemeier, H., Jaddoe, V., Hofman, A., Verhulst, F., van den Brink, W., & Huizink, A. (2010). Agreement between maternal cannabis use during pregnancy according to self-report and urinalysis in a population-based cohort: The generation R study. European Addiction Research, 17(1), 37–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenfield, T. K., Nayak, M. B., Bond, J., Kerr, W. C., & Ye, Y. (2014). Test-retest reliability and validity of life-course alcohol consumption measures: The 2005 National Alcohol Survey follow-up. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 38(9), 2479–2487. doi: 10.1111/acer.12480.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harrell, A. V. (1997). The validity of self-reported drug use data: The accuracy of responses on confidential self-administered answered sheets. NIDA Research Monograph, 167, 37–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrison, L. (1997). The validity of self-reported drug use in survey research: An overview and critique of research methods. NIDA Research Monograph, 167, 17–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horrigan, T. J., & Piazza, N. (1999). The substance abuse subtle screening inventory minimizes the need for toxicology screening of prenatal patients. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 17(3), 243–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jain, R., Balhara, Y. P., Jhanjee, S., & Sethi, H. (2012). Concordance between urinary cotinine levels and self-reported tobacco use among drug-dependent persons: A pilot study. Substance Abuse, 33(2), 99–102. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2011.630947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jain, R., Quraishi, R., Majumder, P., & Pattanayak, R. D. (2013). Comparison of self-report and biological measures for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use in consecutive alcohol-dependent patients visiting a tertiary care centre. Journal of Substance Use, 18(4), 302–310. doi: 10.3109/14659891.2012.674625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lambert, B., Scheiner, M., & Campbell, D. (2010). Ethical issues and addiction. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 29(2), 164–174. doi: 10.1080/10550881003684673.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lange, S., Shield, K., Koren, G., Rehm, J., & Popova, S. (2014). A comparison of the prevalence of prenatal alcohol exposure obtained via maternal self-reports versus meconium testing: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 14, 127. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-127.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lundahl, B., & Burke, B. L. (2009). The effectiveness and applicability of motivational interviewing: A practice-friendly review of four meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(11), 1232–1245. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20638.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 280–296. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Melanson, S. E. (2012). The utility of immunoassays for urine drug testing. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 32(3), 429–447. doi: 10.1016/j.cll.2012.06.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Musshoff, F., Driever, F., Lachenmeier, K., Lachenmeier, D., Banger, M., & Madea, B. (2006). Results of hair analyses for drugs of abuse and comparison with self-reports and urine tests. Forensic Science International, 156(2), 118–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poland, M. L., Dombrowski, M. P., Ager, J. W., & Sokol, R. J. (1993). Punishing pregnant drug users: Enhancing the flight from care. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 31(3), 199–203. doi: 10.1016/0376-8716(93)90001-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reisfield, G. M., Salazar, E., & Bertholf, R. L. (2007). Rational use and interpretation of urine drug testing in chronic opioid therapy. Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 37(4), 301–314.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    SAMHSA. (2011). National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2011. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR34481.v3.
  28. 28.
    SAMHSA. (2014). Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schauberger, C. W., Newbury, E. J., Colburn, J. M., & Al-Hamadani, M. (2014). Prevalence of illicit drug use in pregnant women in a Wisconsin private practice setting. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 211(3), 255. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257–268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stone-Manista, K. (2009). Protecting pregnant women: A guide to successfully challenging criminal child abuse prosecutions of pregnant drug addicts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(3), 823–856. doi: 10.2307/20685059.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360–363.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Voils, C. I., Maciejewski, M. L., Hoyle, R. H., Reeve, B. B., Gallagher, P., Bryson, C. L., & Yancy, W. S, Jr. (2012). Initial validation of a self-report measure of the extent of and reasons for medication nonadherence. Medical Care, 50(12), 1013–1019. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318269e121.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weber, E. M. (1993). Alcohol-and drug-dependent pregnant women: Laws and public policies that promote and inhibit research and the delivery of services. NIDA Research Monograph, 117, 349.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wendell, A. D. (2013). Overview and epidemiology of substance abuse in pregnancy. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 56(1), 91–96. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e31827feeb9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Winstock, A. R., Lea, T., & Sheridan, J. (2008). Prevalence of diversion and injection of methadone and buprenorphine among clients receiving opioid treatment at community pharmacies in New South Wales, Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19, 450–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yonkers, K. A., Howell, H. B., Gotman, N., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2011). Self-report of illicit substance use versus urine toxicology results from at-risk pregnant women. Journal of Substance Use, 16(5), 372–389. doi: 10.3109/14659891003721133.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahek Garg
    • 1
  • Laura Garrison
    • 1
  • Lawrence Leeman
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ajna Hamidovic
    • 1
  • Matthew Borrego
    • 1
  • William F. Rayburn
    • 3
  • Ludmila Bakhireva
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy Practice and Administrative SciencesCollege of Pharmacy, University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of Family and Community MedicineSchool of Medicine, University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySchool of Medicine, University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations