DOI 10.1097/adm.0000000000001271
Comparing the Performance of World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module in Adolescents to Diagnoses Made by Pediatric Addiction Medicine Specialists.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
The World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module (WMH-CIDI-SAM) is commonly used as a criterion standard measure for substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses, although the accuracy of this tool when used with adolescents is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement between SUD diagnoses for adolescents made by WMH-CIDI-SAM and those made by specialists based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) ( DSM-5 ) SUD criteria during an SUD evaluation.
METHODS
Adolescents aged 12 to 17 years presenting to an outpatient SUD program for youth were administered the WMH-CIDI-SAM by a trained research assistant, and results were compared with diagnoses made by experienced clinicians based on DSM-5 SUD criteria during an initial SUD evaluation. Chance-corrected concordance was estimated using the κ coefficient for the comparisons.
RESULTS
The level of concordance between the WMH-CIDI-SAM interview and the clinician diagnosis based on DSM-5 SUD criteria were fair to moderate for alcohol use disorder and tobacco use disorder and poor for cannabis use disorder. Three of 11 WMH-CIDI-SAM item constructs showed poor concordance with clinician diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS
Interpreting the diagnostic criteria for SUDs, particularly cannabis use disorders, is nuanced, and the meaning of the criteria may be misunderstood by adolescents. Further evaluation of the performance of the WMH-CIDI-SAM diagnostic interview for identifying cannabis use disorders in adolescents is needed.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.