Skip to main content
Journal of Medical Toxicology logoLink to Journal of Medical Toxicology
. 2007 Mar;3(1):7–14. doi: 10.1007/BF03161032

Designing a gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB) structured telephone-administered survey instrument

Jo E Dyer 1,2,, Ilene B Anderson 1,2, Susan Y Kim 1,2, Judith C Barker 3, Paul D Blanc 1,4
PMCID: PMC3550122  PMID: 18072152

Abstract

Introduction

As part of a larger study assessing the covariates and outcomes of GHB use, we developed a telephone-survey instrument for hospitalized GHB exposed patients identified through poison control center surveillance and for self-identified GHB users recruited from the general public.

Methods

We used an iterative review process with an interdisciplinary team, including pharmacists, a physician, and a medical anthropologist. In designing the structured, telephone-survey instrument, we prioritized inclusion of validated, drug-specific, and generic questionnaire batteries or individual items related to GHB or to other drugs of abuse. Only one published survey instrument specific to GHB use was identified, which we extensively expanded and modified. We also developed a number of GHB-specific items new to this survey. Finally, we included items from the National Survey on Drug Use & Health, CAGE questionnaire items on alcohol abuse, the SF-12 instrument, and selected National Health Interview items.

Results

The final questionnaire consisted of 272 content items, the majority of which required simple yes or no responses. The bulk of the items (74%) were GHB-specific. The questionnaire was easily administered using computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) software. A total of 131 interviews were administered with a mean administration time of 33±10 minutes. The instrument can also be used in other interview formats.

Conclusion

Developing a successful questionnaire calls for a multidisciplinary and systematic process. Structured, telephone administered surveys are particularly suited to expand and explore the basic information obtained by poison centers for case management.

Keywords: telephone-survey, methods, GHB, new drug of abuse

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (132.3 KB).

Footnotes

Source of Funding: NIDA GRANT RO1-DA 14935. Abstract Presented: European Association Poison Control and Clinical Toxicologists in Strasbourg, France June 2004; Short Title: GHB Survey Methods.

References

  • 1.Dyer JE, Haller CA. Gamma Hydroxybutyrate and the Comatose Patient http://www.chestnet.org/education/pccu/vol14/lesson21-22.index.html. Pulmonary and Critical Care Update Online2001;14(lesson 22).
  • 2.Snead OC, Gibson KM. Gamma-Hydroxybutyric Acid. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(26):2721–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra044047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.ElSohly MA, Salamone SJ. Prevalence of Drugs used in cases of Alleged Sexual Assault. J Anal Toxicol. 1999;23(3):141–6. doi: 10.1093/jat/23.3.141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dyer JE, Roth B, Hyma BA. Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate Withdrawal Syndrome. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37(2):147–53. doi: 10.1067/mem.2001.112985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.FDA. FDA Approves Xyrem for Cataplexy Attacks in Patients with Narcolepsy: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2002 July 17,2002. Report No.: T02-31.
  • 6.Anderson IB, Kim SY, Dyer JE, Burkhardt CB, Iknoian JC, Walsh MJ, et al. Trends in Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and Related Drug Intoxication: 1999 to 2003. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47(2):177–83. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.10.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dalkey N, Brown B, Cochran S. The Delphi Method, III: Use of Self Ratings to Improve Group Estimates. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation; 1969 November1969. Report No.: RM-6115-PR.
  • 8.Miotto K, Darakjian J, Basch J, Murray S, Zogg J, Rawson R. Gamma-Hydroxybutyric Acid: Patterns of use, effects and withdrawal. Am J Addict. 2001;10(3):232–41. doi: 10.1080/105504901750532111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.NSDUH. Overview of findings from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2003 September2003. Report No.: OAS, NHSDA Series H-21, DHHS Pub # SMA 03-3774.
  • 10.McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R, Smith I, Grissom G, et al. The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992;9(3):199–213. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mayfield D, McLeod G, Hall P. The CAGE Questionnaire: Validation of a new alcoholism screening instrument. Am J Psychiatry. 1974;131(10):1121–3. doi: 10.1176/ajp.131.10.1121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Adult Health Practices in the United States and Canada. Washington D.C.: National Center for Health Statistics;1988. [PubMed]
  • 14.Kovar M, Poe G. National Health Interview Survey Design, 1975–1984 and Procedures, 1975–1983;1985.
  • 15.Degenhardt L, Darke S, Dillon P. GHB use among Australians: characteristics, use patterns and associated harm. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;67(1):89–94. doi: 10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00017-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zvosec, DL, Smith SW. Preliminary Findings from the GHB addiction study, MMRF. (Abstract) Presented: International GHB & Chemical Drug Conference September 25–27,2004, Las Vegas NV.
  • 17.Press NA. Committee on Poison Prevention and Control, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Forging a poison prevention and control system. Washington D.C: Institute of Medicine;2004.

Articles from Journal of Medical Toxicology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES