ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2021
Testing the validity of national drug surveys: comparison between a general population cohort and household surveys.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cannabis products and risk perceptions among people who consume and do not consume cannabis in the UK: findings from the International Cannabis Policy Study.Harm reduction journal · 2026Article
- Testing the validity of national drug surveys: comparison between a general population cohort and household surveys.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThere are concerns that national population-based estimates of illicit drug use are underestimated. We investigated this by comparing estimates of illicit substance use at age 24 from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) with a birth cohort (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC) and by comparing the Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit Studies (STS/ATS) to ALSPAC.
designCross-sectional household survey and cross-sectional data from one wave of a longitudinal birth cohort.
settingEngland and Wales.
participantsYoung adults aged 23-25 reporting on substance use in 2017 to CSEW (n = 1165), ALSPAC (n = 3389) and STS/ATS (n = 950). MEASUREMENTS: Lifetime and past-year illicit drug use, smoking status and hazardous drinking at age 24.
findingsThe 2017 CSEW estimate of lifetime illicit drug use was 40.6%, compared with 62.8% in ALSPAC (risk difference % [RD%] = 22.2%; 95% CI = 18.9-25.5%; P ≤ 0.001). The RD in lifetime use between ALSPAC and the CSEW was 23.2% (95% CI = 20.0-26.4%) for cannabis, 16.9% (95% CI = 14.4-19.4%) for powder cocaine and 24.8% (95% CI = 22.6-27.0%) for amphetamine. Past-year drug use was 16.4% in CSEW, compared with 36.7% in ALSPAC (RD% = 20.3%; 95% CI = 17.6-23.0%; P ≤ 0.001). For past-year substance use, the RD between ALSPAC and the CSEW was 15.4% (95% CI = 12.9-17.9%) for cannabis, 14.8% (95% CI = 13.0%-16.6%) for powder cocaine and 15.9% (95% CI = 14.5-17.4%) for amphetamine. Levels of current smoking were similar between STS (27.4%) and ALSPAC (29.4%). Hazardous drinking was substantially higher in ALSPAC (60.3%) than the ATS (32.1%; RD% = 28.2%; 95% CI = 24.8-31.6%; P ≤ 0.001).
conclusionsThe Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children provides one source of validation for measurements of drug use in government household surveys and indicates that illicit drug use may be underestimated in the Crime Survey for England and Wales.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.