“如果有芬太尼,他们不会给你任何提示”:使用认知访谈来理解自我报告和尿液药物筛查的差异。

Substance use : research and treatment Pub Date : 2025-01-31 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/29768357251316220
Dennis P Watson, Katie Clark, Michael L Dennis, Christine E Grella, M Kate Hart
{"title":"“如果有芬太尼,他们不会给你任何提示”:使用认知访谈来理解自我报告和尿液药物筛查的差异。","authors":"Dennis P Watson, Katie Clark, Michael L Dennis, Christine E Grella, M Kate Hart","doi":"10.1177/29768357251316220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fentanyl, a highly potent synthetic opioid, is now involved in the majority of drug overdose deaths in the United States. Discrepancies between substance use self-reports and urine drug screens (UDS) are common, especially when users are unaware of fentanyl adulteration.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to examine the cognitive processes underlying discrepancies between self-reported fentanyl use and UDS results, specifically focusing on participants unaware of their fentanyl exposure.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a cross-sectional qualitative study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study conducted cognitive interviews with 10 participants from a larger clinical trial who tested positive for fentanyl in a UDS but reported no fentanyl use. The interviews explored participants' understanding of survey questions about fentanyl use and their interpretation of UDS results. Responses were analyzed to identify themes related to self-report discrepancies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants often underreported fentanyl use, not due to social desirability bias, but because they interpreted survey questions as asking about known, rather than suspected, fentanyl use. Many acknowledged their drugs were likely adulterated but only reported use when they were certain of fentanyl's presence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that refining survey questions to capture both intentional and unintentional fentanyl exposure could improve the accuracy of self-reported data. These adjustments are critical to improve the accuracy of data collected to inform surveillance strategies, effective public health policies, and clinical interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":517405,"journal":{"name":"Substance use : research and treatment","volume":"19 ","pages":"29768357251316220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11783554/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"They Don't Give You No Note If It's Got Fentanyl\\\": Using Cognitive Interviews to Understand Self-report and Urine Drug Screen Discrepancies.\",\"authors\":\"Dennis P Watson, Katie Clark, Michael L Dennis, Christine E Grella, M Kate Hart\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/29768357251316220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fentanyl, a highly potent synthetic opioid, is now involved in the majority of drug overdose deaths in the United States. Discrepancies between substance use self-reports and urine drug screens (UDS) are common, especially when users are unaware of fentanyl adulteration.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to examine the cognitive processes underlying discrepancies between self-reported fentanyl use and UDS results, specifically focusing on participants unaware of their fentanyl exposure.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a cross-sectional qualitative study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study conducted cognitive interviews with 10 participants from a larger clinical trial who tested positive for fentanyl in a UDS but reported no fentanyl use. The interviews explored participants' understanding of survey questions about fentanyl use and their interpretation of UDS results. Responses were analyzed to identify themes related to self-report discrepancies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants often underreported fentanyl use, not due to social desirability bias, but because they interpreted survey questions as asking about known, rather than suspected, fentanyl use. Many acknowledged their drugs were likely adulterated but only reported use when they were certain of fentanyl's presence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that refining survey questions to capture both intentional and unintentional fentanyl exposure could improve the accuracy of self-reported data. These adjustments are critical to improve the accuracy of data collected to inform surveillance strategies, effective public health policies, and clinical interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":517405,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Substance use : research and treatment\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"29768357251316220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11783554/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Substance use : research and treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/29768357251316220\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance use : research and treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/29768357251316220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:芬太尼是一种强效的合成阿片类药物,目前与美国大多数药物过量死亡有关。物质使用自我报告和尿液药物筛查(UDS)之间的差异很常见,特别是当使用者不知道芬太尼掺假时。目的:本研究的目的是检查自我报告的芬太尼使用和UDS结果之间存在差异的认知过程,特别关注不知道芬太尼暴露的参与者。设计:这是一项横断面定性研究。方法:本研究对来自一项大型临床试验的10名参与者进行了认知访谈,这些参与者在UDS中芬太尼检测呈阳性,但未报告使用芬太尼。访谈探讨了参与者对芬太尼使用调查问题的理解以及他们对UDS结果的解释。对回答进行分析,以确定与自我报告差异相关的主题。结果:参与者经常少报芬太尼的使用,不是由于社会期望偏见,而是因为他们将调查问题解释为询问已知的芬太尼使用情况,而不是怀疑的芬太尼使用情况。许多人承认他们的药物可能是掺假的,但只有在确定芬太尼的存在时才报告使用。结论:研究结果表明,改进调查问题以捕获有意和无意的芬太尼暴露可以提高自我报告数据的准确性。这些调整对于提高所收集数据的准确性至关重要,从而为监测战略、有效的公共卫生政策和临床干预提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"They Don't Give You No Note If It's Got Fentanyl": Using Cognitive Interviews to Understand Self-report and Urine Drug Screen Discrepancies.

Background: Fentanyl, a highly potent synthetic opioid, is now involved in the majority of drug overdose deaths in the United States. Discrepancies between substance use self-reports and urine drug screens (UDS) are common, especially when users are unaware of fentanyl adulteration.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to examine the cognitive processes underlying discrepancies between self-reported fentanyl use and UDS results, specifically focusing on participants unaware of their fentanyl exposure.

Design: This was a cross-sectional qualitative study.

Methods: This study conducted cognitive interviews with 10 participants from a larger clinical trial who tested positive for fentanyl in a UDS but reported no fentanyl use. The interviews explored participants' understanding of survey questions about fentanyl use and their interpretation of UDS results. Responses were analyzed to identify themes related to self-report discrepancies.

Results: Participants often underreported fentanyl use, not due to social desirability bias, but because they interpreted survey questions as asking about known, rather than suspected, fentanyl use. Many acknowledged their drugs were likely adulterated but only reported use when they were certain of fentanyl's presence.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that refining survey questions to capture both intentional and unintentional fentanyl exposure could improve the accuracy of self-reported data. These adjustments are critical to improve the accuracy of data collected to inform surveillance strategies, effective public health policies, and clinical interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信