↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of patient self-reports and urinalysis results obtained under naturalistic methadone treatment conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Drug & Alcohol Dependence, April 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Comparison of patient self-reports and urinalysis results obtained under naturalistic methadone treatment conditions
Published in
Drug & Alcohol Dependence, April 2000
DOI 10.1016/s0376-8716(99)00106-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen T Chermack, John Roll, Mark Reilly, Leonard Davis, Usha Kilaru, John Grabowski

Abstract

This study examined under naturalistic assessment conditions the validity of self-reported opiate and cocaine use among 175 veterans enrolled in methadone treatment, and factors related to self-report validity, such as stage in treatment and drug of abuse. Veterans were interviewed by clinical staff about past 30-day drug use with the addiction severity index (ASI), and urinalysis results were obtained for the same 30-day interval assessed with the ASI. Analysis revealed that urinalysis generally produced higher rates of substance use than patient self-report, and with the exception of reported opiate use among new patients presenting for treatment, validity of patient self-reported drug use generally was poor with patients under-reporting both opiate and cocaine use. The findings are in marked contrast to those obtained in other studies in which participants are ensured confidentiality regarding their self-reports. Further, the results raise questions about the utility of self-report measures of substance use to assess patient progress or methadone program performance.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 26%
Psychology 9 18%
Social Sciences 9 18%
Mathematics 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2014.
All research outputs
#3,528,358
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Drug & Alcohol Dependence
#1,564
of 7,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,470
of 60,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug & Alcohol Dependence
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 60,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.