Measuring Substance Use in Refugees: A Systematic Review of Assessment Instruments.

Substance use & addiction journal Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-15 DOI:10.1177/29767342251348146
Jutta Lindert, Kim-Julian Behr, Sarah Arndt, Marija Jakubauskiene, Paul A Bain, Sascha Milin, Lisa Marie Schuh, Ingo Schäfer
{"title":"Measuring Substance Use in Refugees: A Systematic Review of Assessment Instruments.","authors":"Jutta Lindert, Kim-Julian Behr, Sarah Arndt, Marija Jakubauskiene, Paul A Bain, Sascha Milin, Lisa Marie Schuh, Ingo Schäfer","doi":"10.1177/29767342251348146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite increasing research on substance use among migrants and refugees, little attention has been paid to the instruments assessing substance use in these populations. This systematic review examines the suitability of substance use instruments for use in migrant and refugee populations and the quality of the instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO, and EMBASE was performed. Articles were eligible if they assessed substance use among refugees using a standardized instrument. Instrument properties were assessed using a standardized checklist, and the measurement properties were evaluated according to Terwee's criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, n = 2654 studies were retrieved. Of those, we included n = 55 studies. The most frequently used instrument was the Alcohol Disorder Identification Test (n = 20, 36.4%) followed by the CAGE/CAGE4M and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (n = 7 studies each, 12.7%). Out of 24 instruments, 18 (75%) were developed in English. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were unreported for most instruments (n = 13, 54.2%). None of the instruments were developed with input from refugees. Completion time of the instruments ranged from 1 to 120 minutes. Psychometric properties were either not assessed in refugees or were moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>None of the assessed instruments met all the psychometric criteria sufficiently. Therefore, it will be necessary to develop a rationale for instruments to better fit the needs of diverse groups of migrants and refugees. Accordingly, these instruments fitted to specific groups will allow for better measurement of substance use, diagnosis, and monitoring of treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":" ","pages":"1070-1088"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance use & addiction journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/29767342251348146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite increasing research on substance use among migrants and refugees, little attention has been paid to the instruments assessing substance use in these populations. This systematic review examines the suitability of substance use instruments for use in migrant and refugee populations and the quality of the instruments.

Methods: A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO, and EMBASE was performed. Articles were eligible if they assessed substance use among refugees using a standardized instrument. Instrument properties were assessed using a standardized checklist, and the measurement properties were evaluated according to Terwee's criteria.

Results: In total, n = 2654 studies were retrieved. Of those, we included n = 55 studies. The most frequently used instrument was the Alcohol Disorder Identification Test (n = 20, 36.4%) followed by the CAGE/CAGE4M and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (n = 7 studies each, 12.7%). Out of 24 instruments, 18 (75%) were developed in English. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were unreported for most instruments (n = 13, 54.2%). None of the instruments were developed with input from refugees. Completion time of the instruments ranged from 1 to 120 minutes. Psychometric properties were either not assessed in refugees or were moderate.

Conclusion: None of the assessed instruments met all the psychometric criteria sufficiently. Therefore, it will be necessary to develop a rationale for instruments to better fit the needs of diverse groups of migrants and refugees. Accordingly, these instruments fitted to specific groups will allow for better measurement of substance use, diagnosis, and monitoring of treatment.

衡量难民的物质使用:评估工具的系统审查。
背景:尽管对移民和难民中物质使用的研究越来越多,但很少注意评估这些人群中物质使用的工具。本系统审查审查了在移民和难民人群中使用的物质使用工具的适用性以及工具的质量。方法:系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、PsychINFO、EMBASE等电子数据库。如果物品使用标准化工具评估难民的药物使用情况,则符合条件。使用标准化检查表评估仪器性能,并根据Terwee标准评估测量性能。结果:共检索到n = 2654项研究。其中,我们纳入了n = 55项研究。最常用的工具是酒精障碍识别测试(n = 20, 36.4%),其次是CAGE/CAGE4M和Mini国际神经精神病学访谈(n = 7, 12.7%)。在24种仪器中,18种(75%)是用英语开发的。大多数工具的内容效度、跨文化效度和标准效度未报告(n = 13, 54.2%)。没有一项文书是在难民投入的情况下制定的。仪器完成时间从1分钟到120分钟不等。难民的心理测量特征要么没有被评估,要么是中等的。结论:没有一种评估工具能充分满足所有心理测量标准。因此,有必要为各种文书制定一个合理的理由,以便更好地满足不同移民和难民群体的需要。因此,这些适合特定群体的仪器将允许更好地测量物质使用,诊断和监测治疗。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信