Austin Le1,2, Benjamin H Han1,3, Joseph J Palamar1. 1. Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA.
Abstract
Background: Accurate prevalence estimates are critical to epidemiological research but discordant responses on self-report surveys can lead to over- or underestimation of drug use. We sought to examine the extent and nature of underreported cannabis use (among those later reporting blunt use) from a national drug survey in the US. Methods: We used data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (N = 281,650), a nationally representative probability sample of non-institutionalized populations in the US. We compared self-reported prevalence of past-year cannabis use and blunt use and delineated correlates of underreporting cannabis use, defined as reporting blunt use but not overall cannabis use. Results: An estimated 4.8% (95% CI: 4.4-5.2) of people reported blunt use but not cannabis use. Although corrected prevalence, cannabis use recoded as use only increased from 15.2% (95% CI: 15.0-15.4) to 15.5% (95% CI: 15.3-15.7), individuals who are aged ≥50 (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.06-3.08), female (aOR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.62), Non-Hispanic Black (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.16-1.76), or report lower English proficiency (aOR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.40-7.83) are at increased odds for providing such a discordant response. Individuals with a college degree (aOR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84) and those reporting past-year use of tobacco (aOR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91), alcohol (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.33-0.54), cocaine (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73), or LSD (aOR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.31-0.87) were at lower odds of providing a discordant response. Conclusion: Although changes in prevalence are small when correcting for discordant responses, results provide insight into subgroups that may be more likely to underreport use on surveys.
Background: Accurate prevalence estimates are critical to epidemiological research but discordant responses on self-report surveys can lead to over- or underestimation of drug use. We sought to examine the extent and nature of underreported cannabis use (among those later reporting blunt use) from a national drug survey in the US. Methods: We used data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (N = 281,650), a nationally representative probability sample of non-institutionalized populations in the US. We compared self-reported prevalence of past-year cannabis use and blunt use and delineated correlates of underreporting cannabis use, defined as reporting blunt use but not overall cannabis use. Results: An estimated 4.8% (95% CI: 4.4-5.2) of people reported blunt use but not cannabis use. Although corrected prevalence, cannabis use recoded as use only increased from 15.2% (95% CI: 15.0-15.4) to 15.5% (95% CI: 15.3-15.7), individuals who are aged ≥50 (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.06-3.08), female (aOR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.62), Non-Hispanic Black (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.16-1.76), or report lower English proficiency (aOR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.40-7.83) are at increased odds for providing such a discordant response. Individuals with a college degree (aOR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84) and those reporting past-year use of tobacco (aOR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91), alcohol (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.33-0.54), cocaine (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73), or LSD (aOR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.31-0.87) were at lower odds of providing a discordant response. Conclusion: Although changes in prevalence are small when correcting for discordant responses, results provide insight into subgroups that may be more likely to underreport use on surveys.
Entities:
Keywords:
Marijuana; national surveys; survey reliability
Authors: Joseph J Palamar; Patricia Acosta; Fermín Fernández Calderón; Scott Sherman; Charles M Cleland Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Benjamin H Han; Scott Sherman; Pia M Mauro; Silvia S Martins; James Rotenberg; Joseph J Palamar Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Junrui Di; Ying Li; M Reuel Friedman; Susheel Reddy; Pamela J Surkan; Steven Shoptaw; Michael Plankey Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2016-08-08