Abstract:Background: Self-reported substance use is more likely to be influenced by underreporting bias compared to the biological markers. Underreporting bias or validity of self-reported substance use depends on the study population and cannot be generalized to the entire population. This study aimed to compare the validity of self-reported substance use between research setting and primary health care setting from the same source population. Methods and materials: The population in this study included from Rafsanjan Youth Cohort Study (RYCS) and from primary care health centers. The sample from RYCS is made up 607 participants, 113 (18.62%) women and 494 (81.38%) men and sample from PHC centers is made up 522 individuals including 252 (48.28%) women and 270 (51.72%) men. We compared two groups in respect of prevalence estimates based on self-reported substance use and urine test. Then for evaluating validity of self-reported substance use in both group, the results of reference standard, urine tests, were compared with the results of self-reported drug use using measures of concordance. Results: The prevalence of substance use based on urine test was significantly higher in both settings compared to self-reported substance use over the past 72 h. The sensitivity of self-report substance use over the past 72 h in research setting was 39.4, 20, 10% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively and in primary health care setting was 50, 20.7, 12.5% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively. The level of agreement between self-reported substance use over the past 72 h and urine test indicated fair and moderate agreement for opium in both research and primary health care settings, respectively and also slight agreement for methadone and cannabis in both settings were reported. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of self-reported substance use. For all substances, the level of agreement increased with longer recall periods. The specificity of self-report for all substances in both groups was more than 99%. Conclusion: Individuals in primary health care setting were more likely to self-reported substance use than in research setting, but setting did not have a statistically significant effect in terms of self-reported substance use. Programs that rely on self-reported substance use may not estimate the exact prevalence of substance use in both research and primary health care settings, especially for substances that have a higher social stigma. Therefore, it is recommended that self-report and biological indicators be used for more accurate evaluation in substance use studies. It is also suggested that future epidemiological studies be performed to reduce bias of social desirability and find a method providing the highest level of privacy.

On the Value of Measuring Recent Drug Use by Self-Reports and Urinalysis in Clinical Trials

Predictors of correspondence between self-reported substance use and urinalysis screening among a racially diverse cohort of young men who have sex with men and transgender women

Moving beyond self-report in characterizing drug addiction: Using drug-biased behavior to prospectively inform treatment adherence in opioid use disorder.

Comparing presumptive with direct-to-definitive drug testing in oral fluid vs. urine for a U.S. national sample of individuals misusing drugs

Self-Reported Substance Use With Clinician Interviewers Versus Self-Administered Surveys

Validation of Self-reported Opioid Agonist Treatment Among People Who Inject Drugs Using Prescription Dispensation Records

Within-treatment frequency of use versus abstinence as a predictor of longitudinal post-treatment follow-up assessments of drug use

Feasibility of using real-world data to emulate substance use disorder clinical trials: a cross-sectional study

Direct-To-Definitive Urine and Oral Fluid Test Results for Unscreened and Rarely Screened Drugs in Individuals Applying for Methadone Treatment in 7 U.S. States

Reduced drug use as an alternative valid outcome in individuals with stimulant use disorders: Findings from 13 multisite randomized clinical trials

Evaluation of Minimum Reporting Limits to Determine In-Competition Use of Stimulants

Talk is cheap: measuring drinking outcomes in clinical trials.

Dropout in clinical trials of pharmacological treatment for methamphetamine dependence: the role of initial abstinence

Participant experiences in a pilot study for methamphetamine withdrawal treatment: Implications for retention

Validity of self-reported substance use: research setting versus primary health care setting

A brief measure of non-drug reinforcement: Association with treatment outcomes during initial substance use recovery

Empirically contrasting urine drug screening‐based opioid use disorder treatment outcome definitions

Characterising methamphetamine/amphetamine use among opioid agonist therapy‐seeking adults with prescription‐type opioid use disorder in Canada

Use of item response theory and latent class analysis to link poly-substance use disorders with addiction severity, HIV risk, and quality of life among opioid-dependent patients in the Clinical Trials Network

Longitudinal study of impact of medication for opioid use disorder on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

The Concordance of Electronic Health Record Diagnoses and Substance use Self-Reports Among Reproductive Aged Women Enrolled in a Community-Based Addiction Reduction Program