Ecological Momentary Assessment of Alcohol Consumption and Its Concordance with Transdermal Alcohol Detection and Timeline Follow-Back Self-report Among Adults Experiencing Homelessness.
Ecological Momentary Assessment of Alcohol Consumption and Its Concordance with Transdermal Alcohol Detection and Timeline Follow-Back Self-report Among Adults Experiencing Homelessness.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/acer.14571
复制
发表时间：
2021-04
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Walters ST
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mun EY;Li X;Businelle MS;Hébert ET;Tan Z;Barnett NP;Walters ST
酒精使用的研究假设有效的评估措施。为了评估这一假设，我们检查了酒精使用的一致性，通过生态瞬时评估（EMA）自我报告，通过安全连续远程酒精监测器（SCRAM）的透皮酒精浓度读数，以及通过时间轴跟踪（TLFB）的回顾性自我报告，在经历无家可归的成年人中进行测量。从无家可归者收容所招募了49名报告酒精滥用的成年人（平均年龄= 47，SD = 9; 57%黑人; 82%男性）。在4周内，评估酒精使用情况：（i）EMA每天评估5次或更多次，（ii）每30分钟评估一次佩戴在踝关节上的SCRAM装置，（iii）在研究期结束时评估过去一个月的TLFB。对49名参与者的酒精使用和酒精使用强度进行了1,389天的观察。EMA和SCRAM酒精使用数据在73%的天数内一致，评分者间一致性Kappa = 0.46。一个多层次的分析一致性的3个措施的酒精使用产生统计学显着的相关性0.40（天的水平）和0.63（人的水平）之间的EMA和SCRAM。EMA、SCRAM和TLFB分别在49%、38%和33%的天数检测到酒精使用。对于酒精使用强度，EMA和SCRAM导致0.46（天水平）和0.78（人水平）的统计学显著相关性。TLFB与EMA或SCRAM的一致性较弱，尤其是在日内水平。这是第一个研究使用EMA，SCRAM和TLFB方法在无家可归的成年人中检查酒精使用估计的一致性。EMA是量化酒精使用的有效方法，特别是考虑到其相对较低的成本，较低的参与者负担和易用性。此外，任何与佩戴SCRAM或亲自报告酒精使用相关的耻辱都可以通过使用EMA来减轻，这可能对在耻辱化和服务不足人群的研究中使用有吸引力。我们通过生态瞬时评估（EMA）自我报告，通过安全连续远程酒精监测器（SCRAM）的透皮酒精浓度读数，以及通过时间轴随访（TLFB）的回顾性自我报告，在经历无家可归的成年人中检查了酒精使用的一致性。EMA和SCRAM之间的一致性是有希望的，而TLFB与EMA或SCRAM的一致性较弱。EMA对酒精消费是有效的和令人鼓舞的，因为它的成本相对较低，参与者负担较低，易于使用，并且耻辱较少。
Studies of alcohol use presume valid assessment measures. To evaluate this presumption, we examined the concordance of alcohol use as measured by ecological momentary assessment (EMA) self‐reports, transdermal alcohol concentration readings via the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM), and retrospective self‐reports via the Timeline Follow‐Back (TLFB) among adults experiencing homelessness. Forty‐nine adults who reported alcohol misuse (mean age = 47, SD = 9; 57% Black; 82% men) were recruited from a homeless shelter. For 4 weeks, alcohol use was assessed: (i) 5 times or more per day by EMA, (ii) every 30 minutes by a SCRAM device worn on the ankle, and (iii) by TLFB for the past month at the end of the study period. There were 1,389 days of observations of alcohol use and alcohol use intensity for 49 participants. EMA and SCRAM alcohol use data agreed on 73% of days, with an interrater agreement Kappa = 0.46. A multilevel analysis of concordance of 3 measures for alcohol use yielded statistically significant correlations of 0.40 (day level) and 0.63 (person level) between EMA and SCRAM. Alcohol use was detected on 49, 38, and 33% of days by EMA, SCRAM, and TLFB, respectively. For alcohol use intensity, EMA and SCRAM resulted in statistically significant correlations of 0.46 (day level) and 0.78 (person level). The concordance of TLFB with either EMA or SCRAM was weak, especially at the day level. This is the first study to examine concordance of alcohol use estimates using EMA, SCRAM, and TLFB methods in adults experiencing homelessness. EMA is a valid approach to quantifying alcohol use, especially given its relatively low cost, low participant burden, and ease of use. Furthermore, any stigma associated with wearing the SCRAM or reporting alcohol use in person may be attenuated by using EMA, which may be appealing for use in studies of stigmatized and underserved populations. We examined concordance of alcohol use as measured by ecological momentary assessment (EMA) self‐reports, transdermal alcohol concentration readings via the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM), and retrospective self‐reports via the Timeline Follow‐Back (TLFB) in adults experiencing homelessness. The concordance between EMA and SCRAM was promising while the concordance of TLFB with either EMA or SCRAM was weak. EMA for alcohol consumption is valid and encouraging, given its relatively low cost, low participant burden, ease of use, and less stigma.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1111/add.13767
发表时间：
2017-06
期刊：
Addiction (Abingdon, England)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Barnett NP;Celio MA;Tidey JW;Murphy JG;Colby SM;Swift RM
通讯作者：
Swift RM
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Guyatt, Gordon H.;Oxman, Andrew D.;Schuenemann, Holger J.
通讯作者：
Schuenemann, Holger J.
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Caluzzi, Gabriel;Pennay, Amy;Kuntsche, Emmanuel
通讯作者：
Kuntsche, Emmanuel
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Dougherty, Donald M.;Charles, Nora E.;Hill-Kapturczak, Nathalie
通讯作者：
Hill-Kapturczak, Nathalie
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Fairbairn, Catharine E.;Kang, Dahyeon
通讯作者：
Kang, Dahyeon