Kelly C Young-Wolff1, Varada Sarovar, Lue-Yen Tucker, Nancy Goler, Amy Conway, Constance Weisner, Mary Anne Armstrong, Stacey Alexeeff. 1. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA (KCY-W, VS, L-YT, CW, MAA, SA); Department of Psychiatry, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA (KCY-W, CW); Regional Offices, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland CA (NG); Early Start Program, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland CA (AC).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most clinical and epidemiologic estimates of prenatal cannabis use are based on self-report, and the validity of self-reported cannabis use has not been examined in a large, representative population of pregnant women. We determined the validity of self-reported prenatal cannabis use and predictors of nondisclosure using data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California's (KPNC) healthcare system with universal prenatal cannabis screening during prenatal care. METHODS: Validation study using data from 281,025 pregnancies in KPNC among females aged ≥11 years who completed a self-administered questionnaire on prenatal cannabis use and a cannabis urine toxicology test from 2009 to 2017. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of self-reported prenatal cannabis use using urine toxicology testing as the criterion standard, and sensitivity of urine toxicology testing using self-reported use as the criterion standard. We compared sociodemographics of those who disclosed versus did not disclose prenatal cannabis use. RESULTS: Urine toxicology testing identified more instances of prenatal cannabis use than self-report (4.9% vs 2.5%). Sensitivity of self-reported use was low (33.9%). Sensitivity of the toxicology test was higher (65.8%), with greater detection of self-reported daily (83.9%) and weekly (77.4%) than monthly or less use (54.1%). Older women, those of Hispanic race/ethnicity, and those with lower median neighborhood incomes were most likely to be misclassified as not using cannabis by self-reported screening. CONCLUSIONS: Given that many women choose not to disclose prenatal cannabis use, clinicians should educate all prenatal patients about the potential risks and advise them to quit cannabis use during pregnancy.
BACKGROUND: Most clinical and epidemiologic estimates of prenatal cannabis use are based on self-report, and the validity of self-reported cannabis use has not been examined in a large, representative population of pregnant women. We determined the validity of self-reported prenatal cannabis use and predictors of nondisclosure using data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California's (KPNC) healthcare system with universal prenatal cannabis screening during prenatal care. METHODS: Validation study using data from 281,025 pregnancies in KPNC among females aged ≥11 years who completed a self-administered questionnaire on prenatal cannabis use and a cannabis urine toxicology test from 2009 to 2017. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of self-reported prenatal cannabis use using urine toxicology testing as the criterion standard, and sensitivity of urine toxicology testing using self-reported use as the criterion standard. We compared sociodemographics of those who disclosed versus did not disclose prenatal cannabis use. RESULTS: Urine toxicology testing identified more instances of prenatal cannabis use than self-report (4.9% vs 2.5%). Sensitivity of self-reported use was low (33.9%). Sensitivity of the toxicology test was higher (65.8%), with greater detection of self-reported daily (83.9%) and weekly (77.4%) than monthly or less use (54.1%). Older women, those of Hispanic race/ethnicity, and those with lower median neighborhood incomes were most likely to be misclassified as not using cannabis by self-reported screening. CONCLUSIONS: Given that many women choose not to disclose prenatal cannabis use, clinicians should educate all prenatal patients about the potential risks and advise them to quit cannabis use during pregnancy.
Authors: R S Niedbala; K W Kardos; D F Fritch; S Kardos; T Fries; J Waga; J Robb; E J Cone Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2001 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Torri D Metz; Robert M Silver; Gwendolyn A McMillin; Amanda A Allshouse; Triniti L Jensen; Chanel Mansfield; Kennon Heard; Gregory L Kinney; Erica Wymore; Ingrid A Binswanger Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mahmoud A ElSohly; Zlatko Mehmedic; Susan Foster; Chandrani Gon; Suman Chandra; James C Church Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Mahek Garg; Laura Garrison; Lawrence Leeman; Ajna Hamidovic; Matthew Borrego; William F Rayburn; Ludmila Bakhireva Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2016-01
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Robert P Schwartz; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Kevin E O'Grady; Steven J Ondersma Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Kelly C Young-Wolff; Varada Sarovar; Lue-Yen Tucker; Deborah Ansley; Nancy Goler; Amy Conway; Allison Ettenger; Tara R Foti; Qiana L Brown; Ellen T Kurtzman; Sara R Adams; Stacey E Alexeeff Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-06-01
Authors: Natalie S Levy; Joseph J Palamar; Stephen J Mooney; Charles M Cleland; Katherine M Keyes Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 6.996
Authors: Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Tessa Crume; Julia Van Dyke; Katherine R Sabourin; Gnakub N Soke; Lisa A Croen; Julie L Daniels; Li-Ching Lee; Laura A Schieve; Gayle C Windham; Sandra Friedman; Cordelia Robinson Rosenberg Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2021-11-12
Authors: Ami S Ikeda; Valerie S Knopik; L Cinnamon Bidwell; Stephanie H Parade; Sherryl H Goodman; Eugene K Emory; Rohan H C Palmer Journal: Toxics Date: 2022-01-05