Validity of Timeline Follow-Back for self-reported use of cannabis and other illicit substances - Systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:251
|
作者
Hjorthoj, Carsten Rygaard [1 ]
Hjorthoj, Anne Rygaard [2 ]
Nordentoft, Merete [1 ]
机构
[1] Copenhagen Univ Hosp, Mental Hlth Ctr Copenhagen, iPSYCH, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
[2] Natl Board Hlth, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
Timeline Follow-Back; Self-report; Illicit drugs; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; BRIEF MOTIVATIONAL INTERVENTION; COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THERAPY; COCAINE-DEPENDENT PATIENTS; CONTROLLED SCREENING TRIAL; PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL; DRUG-USE; COOCCURRING COCAINE; ALCOHOL-CONSUMPTION; DOUBLE-BLIND; MARIJUANA DEPENDENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.025
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Background: Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) is a widely used, calendar-based measure of self-reported use of (among other things) illicit substances. We examined agreement between TLFB and biological measures for illicit substances. Methods: PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL and EMBASE were searched in December 2010. 16,633 papers screened to identify those that measured illicit substance use by both TLFB and biological measures. We extracted data on agreement between TLFB and biological measures, sample size, study type, inclusion criteria of participants, and length of recall of TLFB. Results: Twenty-nine papers were included, almost exclusively in substance-use-disorder populations. Some studies reported several overall agreement rates, e.g. over time. Lowest and highest weighted average agreement rates were: for cannabis, 87.3% (95% confidence interval 86.9% to 87.7%) and 90.9% (90.5% to 91.4%); for cocaine, 79.3% (79.1% to 79.6%) and 84.1% (83.9% to 84.2%), for opiates 94.0% (93.5% to 94.5%) for both weighted averages; and for studies not distinguishing between substances, 88.5% (88.4 to 88.7%) and 91.0% (90.7% to 91.2%). Higher agreement was found in populations without psychiatric comorbidity, and lower agreement in randomized controlled trials. Publication bias or selective outcome reporting bias was not detected. Conclusions: TLFB validly detects use of illicit substances in populations with substance use disorders. Using TLFB may limit the need for biological samples, making information on illicit substance use easier and less costly to obtain and analyze. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:225 / 233
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] VALIDITY OF TIMELINE FOLLOW-BACK FOR USE OF CANNABIS AND OTHER ILLICIT SUBSTANCES IN PATIENTS WITH PSYCHOSIS
    Hjorthoj, Carsten R.
    Hjorthoj, Anne R.
    Fohlmann, Allan
    Larsen, Anne-Mette
    Arendt, Mikkel
    Nordentoft, Merete
    SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH, 2012, 136 : S276 - S277
  • [2] Validity of Self-Reported Periodontal Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Abbood, Hadeel M.
    Hinz, Juliane
    Cherukara, George
    Macfarlane, Tatiana V.
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2016, 87 (12) : 1474 - 1483
  • [3] Agreement between self-reported illicit drug use and biological samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Bharat, Chrianna
    Webb, Paige
    Wilkinson, Zachary
    McKetin, Rebecca
    Grebely, Jason
    Farrell, Michael
    Holland, Adam
    Hickman, Matthew
    Tran, Lucy Thi
    Clark, Brodie
    Peacock, Amy
    Darke, Shane
    Li, Jih-Heng
    Degenhardt, Louisa
    ADDICTION, 2023, 118 (09) : 1624 - 1648
  • [4] Agreement between self-reported illicit drug use and biological samples: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Bharat, Chrianna
    Webb, Paige
    Wilkinson, Zachary
    McKetin, Rebecca
    Grebely, Jason
    Farrell, Michael
    Holland, Adam
    Hickman, Matthew
    Tran, Lucy T.
    Clark, Brodie
    Peacock, Amy
    Darke, Shane
    Li, Jih-Heng
    Degenhardt, Louisa
    DRUG AND ALCOHOL REVIEW, 2023, 42 : S41 - S42
  • [5] Concordance between timeline follow-back and single-question assessment of self-reported smoking in a clinical trial
    Bernstein, Steven L.
    Rosner, June
    Toll, Benjamin
    SUBSTANCE ABUSE, 2016, 37 (03) : 398 - 401
  • [6] Validity of self-reported recall of anthropometric measures in early life: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    De Rubeis, Vanessa
    Bayat, Sawila
    Griffith, Lauren E.
    Smith, Brendan T.
    Anderson, Laura N.
    OBESITY REVIEWS, 2019, 20 (10) : 1426 - 1440
  • [7] Accuracy of self-reported hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Goncalves, Vivian S. S.
    Andrade, Keitty R. C.
    Carvalho, Kenia M. B.
    Silva, Marcus T.
    Pereira, Mauricio G.
    Galvao, Tais F.
    JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2018, 36 (05) : 970 - 978
  • [8] The Accuracy of Self-Reported Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Gorber, Sarah Connor
    Tremblay, Mark
    Campbell, Norm
    Hardt, Jill
    CURRENT HYPERTENSION REVIEWS, 2008, 4 (01) : 36 - 62
  • [9] QUANTIFYING BIAS TO OVERESTIMATION IN SELF-REPORTED ITN USE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW TO META-ANALYSIS
    Krezanoski, Paul Joseph
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, 2015, 93 (04): : 573 - 573
  • [10] A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use
    Douglas A. Parry
    Brittany I. Davidson
    Craig J. R. Sewall
    Jacob T. Fisher
    Hannah Mieczkowski
    Daniel S. Quintana
    Nature Human Behaviour, 2021, 5 : 1535 - 1547