Methods for assessing drug use prevalence in the workplace: a comparison of self-report, urinalysis, and hair analysis.

R F Cook, A D Bernstein, T L Arrington, C M Andrews, G A Marshall
{"title":"Methods for assessing drug use prevalence in the workplace: a comparison of self-report, urinalysis, and hair analysis.","authors":"R F Cook,&nbsp;A D Bernstein,&nbsp;T L Arrington,&nbsp;C M Andrews,&nbsp;G A Marshall","doi":"10.3109/10826089509048734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A random sample of 1,200 employees of a steel manufacturing plant were randomly assigned to four different self-report methods of assessing illicit drug use: 1) Individual interview in the workplace, 2) group-administered questionnaire in the workplace, 3) telephone interview, and 4) individual interview off the worksite. Urine specimens were collected and analyzed on all 928 subjects participating in the study, and hair analysis was conducted on 307 of the subjects. Although self-reports produced the highest drug use prevalence rate, analyses combining the results of the three assessment methods showed that the actual prevalence rate was approximately 50% higher than the estimate produced by self-reports. The group-administered questionnaire condition produced prevalence rates that were roughly half those of the other self-report methods. The findings cast doubt on the validity of self-reports as a means of estimating drug use prevalence and suggest the need for multiple assessment methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":76639,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of the addictions","volume":"30 4","pages":"403-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/10826089509048734","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of the addictions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/10826089509048734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

A random sample of 1,200 employees of a steel manufacturing plant were randomly assigned to four different self-report methods of assessing illicit drug use: 1) Individual interview in the workplace, 2) group-administered questionnaire in the workplace, 3) telephone interview, and 4) individual interview off the worksite. Urine specimens were collected and analyzed on all 928 subjects participating in the study, and hair analysis was conducted on 307 of the subjects. Although self-reports produced the highest drug use prevalence rate, analyses combining the results of the three assessment methods showed that the actual prevalence rate was approximately 50% higher than the estimate produced by self-reports. The group-administered questionnaire condition produced prevalence rates that were roughly half those of the other self-report methods. The findings cast doubt on the validity of self-reports as a means of estimating drug use prevalence and suggest the need for multiple assessment methods.

评估工作场所药物使用流行程度的方法:自我报告、尿液分析和毛发分析的比较。
随机抽取一家钢铁厂的1200名员工,随机分配四种不同的评估非法药物使用的自我报告方法:1)工作场所个人访谈,2)工作场所小组问卷调查,3)电话访谈,4)工作场所外个人访谈。收集928名受试者的尿液样本并对其进行分析,对307名受试者进行毛发分析。虽然自我报告产生了最高的药物使用患病率,但结合三种评估方法的结果进行的分析表明,实际患病率比自我报告产生的估计值高出约50%。小组管理的问卷调查条件产生的患病率大约是其他自我报告方法的一半。研究结果对自我报告作为估计药物使用流行程度手段的有效性提出了质疑,并建议需要多种评估方法。
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