BACKGROUND: It is important to correctly understand the associations among addiction to multiple drugs and between co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders. Substance-specific outcomes (e.g. number of days used cannabis) have distributional characteristics which range widely depending on the substance and the sample being evaluated. OBJECTIVES: We recommend a four-part strategy for determining the appropriate distribution for modeling substance use data. We demonstrate this strategy by comparing the model fit and resulting inferences from applying four different distributions to model use of substances that range greatly in the prevalence and frequency of their use. METHODS: Using Timeline Followback (TLFB) data from a previously-published study, we used negative binomial, beta-binomial and their zero-inflated counterparts to model proportion of days during treatment of cannabis, cigarettes, alcohol, and opioid use. The fit for each distribution was evaluated with statistical model selection criteria, visual plots and a comparison of the resulting inferences. RESULTS: We demonstrate the feasibility and utility of modeling each substance individually and show that no single distribution provides the best fit for all substances. Inferences regarding use of each substance and associations with important clinical variables were not consistent across models and differed by substance. CONCLUSION: Thus, the distribution chosen for modeling substance use must be carefully selected and evaluated because it may impact the resulting conclusions. Furthermore, the common procedure of aggregating use across different substances may not be ideal.
BACKGROUND: It is important to correctly understand the associations among addiction to multiple drugs and between co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders. Substance-specific outcomes (e.g. number of days used cannabis) have distributional characteristics which range widely depending on the substance and the sample being evaluated. OBJECTIVES: We recommend a four-part strategy for determining the appropriate distribution for modeling substance use data. We demonstrate this strategy by comparing the model fit and resulting inferences from applying four different distributions to model use of substances that range greatly in the prevalence and frequency of their use. METHODS: Using Timeline Followback (TLFB) data from a previously-published study, we used negative binomial, beta-binomial and their zero-inflated counterparts to model proportion of days during treatment of cannabis, cigarettes, alcohol, and opioid use. The fit for each distribution was evaluated with statistical model selection criteria, visual plots and a comparison of the resulting inferences. RESULTS: We demonstrate the feasibility and utility of modeling each substance individually and show that no single distribution provides the best fit for all substances. Inferences regarding use of each substance and associations with important clinical variables were not consistent across models and differed by substance. CONCLUSION: Thus, the distribution chosen for modeling substance use must be carefully selected and evaluated because it may impact the resulting conclusions. Furthermore, the common procedure of aggregating use across different substances may not be ideal.
Authors: Michael S Robbins; Daniel J Feaster; Viviana E Horigian; Michael Rohrbaugh; Varda Shoham; Ken Bachrach; Michael Miller; Kathleen A Burlew; Candy Hodgkins; Ibis Carrion; Nancy Vandermark; Eric Schindler; Robert Werstlein; José Szapocznik Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2011-10-03
Authors: Michael Dennis; Susan H Godley; Guy Diamond; Frank M Tims; Thomas Babor; Jean Donaldson; Howard Liddle; Janet C Titus; Yifrah Kaminer; Charles Webb; Nancy Hamilton; Rod Funk Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2004-10
Authors: Paula D Riggs; Laetitia L Thompson; Susan F Tapert; Joseph Frascella; Susan Mikulich-Gilbertson; Manish Dalwani; Mark Laudenslager; Michelle Lohman Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Tara G Martin; Brendan A Wintle; Jonathan R Rhodes; Petra M Kuhnert; Scott A Field; Samantha J Low-Choy; Andrew J Tyre; Hugh P Possingham Journal: Ecol Lett Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 9.492
Authors: Paula D Riggs; Theresa Winhusen; Robert D Davies; Jeffrey D Leimberger; Susan Mikulich-Gilbertson; Constance Klein; Marilyn Macdonald; Michelle Lohman; Genie L Bailey; Louise Haynes; William B Jaffee; Nancy Haminton; Candace Hodgkins; Elizabeth Whitmore; Kathlene Trello-Rishel; Leanne Tamm; Michelle C Acosta; Charlotte Royer-Malvestuto; Geetha Subramaniam; Marc Fishman; Beverly W Holmes; Mary Elyse Kaye; Mark A Vargo; George E Woody; Edward V Nunes; David Liu Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Christian Thurstone; Paula D Riggs; Stacy Salomonsen-Sautel; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Keiki Hinami; Michael J Ray; Kruti Doshi; Maria Torres; Steven Aks; John J Shannon; William E Trick Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nicholas I Goldenson; Adam M Leventhal; Matthew D Stone; Rob S McConnell; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Michael P Schaub; Matthijs Blankers; Dirk Lehr; Leif Boss; Heleen Riper; Jack Dekker; Anna E Goudriaan; Larissa J Maier; Severin Haug; Manuel Amann; Michelle Dey; Andreas Wenger; David D Ebert Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 2.692