Cargando…
Comparison and validation of screening tools for substance use in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study conducted in Maryland prenatal clinics
INTRODUCTION: Prescription-drug use in the USA has increased by more than 60% in the last three decades. Prevalence of prescription-drug use among pregnant women is currently estimated around 50%. Prevalence of illicit drug use in the USA is 14.6% among pregnant adolescents, 8.6% among pregnant youn...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5855391/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29455170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020248 |
_version_ | 1783307092541571072 |
---|---|
author | Coleman-Cowger, Victoria H Oga, Emmanuel A Peters, Erica N Trocin, Kathleen Koszowski, Bartosz Mark, Katrina |
author_facet | Coleman-Cowger, Victoria H Oga, Emmanuel A Peters, Erica N Trocin, Kathleen Koszowski, Bartosz Mark, Katrina |
author_sort | Coleman-Cowger, Victoria H |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Prescription-drug use in the USA has increased by more than 60% in the last three decades. Prevalence of prescription-drug use among pregnant women is currently estimated around 50%. Prevalence of illicit drug use in the USA is 14.6% among pregnant adolescents, 8.6% among pregnant young adults and 3.2% among pregnant adults. The first step in identifying problematic drug use during pregnancy is screening; however, no specific substance-use screener has been universally recommended for use with pregnant women to identify illicit or prescription-drug use. This study compares and validates three existing substance-use screeners for pregnancy—4 P’s Plus, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Quick Screen/Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) and the Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy (SURP-P) scale. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cross-sectional study designed to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and usability of existing substance-use screeners. Recruitment occurs at two obstetrics clinics in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. We are recruiting 500 participants to complete a demographic questionnaire, NIDA Quick Screen/ASSIST, 4 P’s Plus and SURP-P (ordered randomly) during their regularly scheduled prenatal appointment, then again 1 week later by telephone. Participants consent to multidrug urine testing, hair drug testing and allowing access to prescription drug and birth outcome data from electronic medical records. For each screener, reliability and validity will be assessed. Test–retest reliability analysis will be conducted by examining the results of repeated screener administrations within 1 week of original screener administrations for consistency via correlation analysis. Furthermore, we will assess if there are differences in the validity of each screener by age, race and trimester. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Maryland (HP-00072042), Baltimore, and Battelle Memorial Institute (0619–100106433). All participants are required to give their informed consent prior to any study procedure. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5855391 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58553912018-03-19 Comparison and validation of screening tools for substance use in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study conducted in Maryland prenatal clinics Coleman-Cowger, Victoria H Oga, Emmanuel A Peters, Erica N Trocin, Kathleen Koszowski, Bartosz Mark, Katrina BMJ Open Public Health INTRODUCTION: Prescription-drug use in the USA has increased by more than 60% in the last three decades. Prevalence of prescription-drug use among pregnant women is currently estimated around 50%. Prevalence of illicit drug use in the USA is 14.6% among pregnant adolescents, 8.6% among pregnant young adults and 3.2% among pregnant adults. The first step in identifying problematic drug use during pregnancy is screening; however, no specific substance-use screener has been universally recommended for use with pregnant women to identify illicit or prescription-drug use. This study compares and validates three existing substance-use screeners for pregnancy—4 P’s Plus, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Quick Screen/Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) and the Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy (SURP-P) scale. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cross-sectional study designed to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and usability of existing substance-use screeners. Recruitment occurs at two obstetrics clinics in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. We are recruiting 500 participants to complete a demographic questionnaire, NIDA Quick Screen/ASSIST, 4 P’s Plus and SURP-P (ordered randomly) during their regularly scheduled prenatal appointment, then again 1 week later by telephone. Participants consent to multidrug urine testing, hair drug testing and allowing access to prescription drug and birth outcome data from electronic medical records. For each screener, reliability and validity will be assessed. Test–retest reliability analysis will be conducted by examining the results of repeated screener administrations within 1 week of original screener administrations for consistency via correlation analysis. Furthermore, we will assess if there are differences in the validity of each screener by age, race and trimester. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Maryland (HP-00072042), Baltimore, and Battelle Memorial Institute (0619–100106433). All participants are required to give their informed consent prior to any study procedure. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5855391/ /pubmed/29455170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020248 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Public Health Coleman-Cowger, Victoria H Oga, Emmanuel A Peters, Erica N Trocin, Kathleen Koszowski, Bartosz Mark, Katrina Comparison and validation of screening tools for substance use in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study conducted in Maryland prenatal clinics |
title | Comparison and validation of screening tools for substance use in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study conducted in Maryland prenatal clinics |
title_full | Comparison and validation of screening tools for substance use in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study conducted in Maryland prenatal clinics |
title_fullStr | Comparison and validation of screening tools for substance use in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study conducted in Maryland prenatal clinics |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison and validation of screening tools for substance use in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study conducted in Maryland prenatal clinics |
title_short | Comparison and validation of screening tools for substance use in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study conducted in Maryland prenatal clinics |
title_sort | comparison and validation of screening tools for substance use in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study conducted in maryland prenatal clinics |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5855391/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29455170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020248 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT colemancowgervictoriah comparisonandvalidationofscreeningtoolsforsubstanceuseinpregnancyacrosssectionalstudyconductedinmarylandprenatalclinics AT ogaemmanuela comparisonandvalidationofscreeningtoolsforsubstanceuseinpregnancyacrosssectionalstudyconductedinmarylandprenatalclinics AT peterserican comparisonandvalidationofscreeningtoolsforsubstanceuseinpregnancyacrosssectionalstudyconductedinmarylandprenatalclinics AT trocinkathleen comparisonandvalidationofscreeningtoolsforsubstanceuseinpregnancyacrosssectionalstudyconductedinmarylandprenatalclinics AT koszowskibartosz comparisonandvalidationofscreeningtoolsforsubstanceuseinpregnancyacrosssectionalstudyconductedinmarylandprenatalclinics AT markkatrina comparisonandvalidationofscreeningtoolsforsubstanceuseinpregnancyacrosssectionalstudyconductedinmarylandprenatalclinics |