Skip to main content
PMC home page
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research logoLink to International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
. 2007 Aug 17;16(3):111–123. doi: 10.1002/mpr.220

Case ascertainment of alcohol dependence in general population surveys: ‘gated’ versus ‘ungated’ approaches

Louisa Degenhardt 1,2, Kipling M Bohnert 1, James C Anthony 1,✉
PMCID: PMC6878367  PMID: 17703472

Abstract

Social role impairment and other forms of maladaptation are referenced explicitly in the case definitions for the drug use disorders within DSM‐IV‐TR, but there is continuing debate about whether and how to include these manifestations of ‘clinical significance’ in diagnostic criteria and assessment protocols. When a ‘gated’ approach (based on impairment or other maladaptation) has been taken during recent large scale psychiatric surveys with coverage of drug dependence (e.g. to reduce participant fatigue or burden), the net effect may include (a) a reduced number of identified cases, and (b) biases in the estimates of association linked to the occurrence of drug dependence. In this report focused on alcohol dependence, we probe these issues, making use of data from the cross‐sectional US National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a household survey with 44,093 adult participants. NESARC alcohol dependence assessments were ‘ungated’, but allowed simulation of a ‘gated’ approach; the end result was a robust decrement in the estimated prevalence of this condition. Nonetheless, patterns of association linking suspected background characteristics to prevalence of alcohol dependence were not appreciably different when the gated and ungated estimates were contrasted. In summary, there are reasons to take the ungated approach in detailed research on alcohol use and dependence. Nevertheless, in panoramic mental health surveys, the inefficiency of an ungated approach must be balanced against the anticipated yield of cases who have experienced alcohol dependence without alcohol related social role impairments or other maladaptation, particularly when the dependence syndromes without these consequences are sometimes thought to lack clinical significance. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: epidemiological research, psychiatric diagnostic interview, alcohol, abuse, dependence

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (208.4 KB).

REFERENCES

  1. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Edition). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition – Technical Revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthony JC, Warner L, Kessler, R . Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, and inhalants: Basic findings from the National Comorbidity Survey. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 1994; 2: 244–68. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beals J, Novins D, Spicer P, Orton H, Mitchell C, Baron A, Manson S, The AI‐SUPERPFP Team. Challenges in operationalising the DSM‐IV clinical significance criterion. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004; 61: 1197–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berkson J. Limitations of the application of fourfold table analysis to hospital data. Biometrics Bulletin 1946; 2: 47–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Blazer DG, Kaplan B. Controversies in community‐based psychiatric epidemiology. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000; 57: 227–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bobashev GV, Anthony JC. Clusters of marijuana use in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 148: 1168–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bobashev GV, Anthony JC. Use of alternating logistic regression in studies of drug‐use clustering. Substance Use and Misuse 2000; 35: 1051–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Degenhardt L, Cheng H, Anthony J. Assessing cannabis dependence in community surveys: methodological issues. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2007; 16(2): 43–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Edwards G, Gross M. Alcohol dependence: provisional description of a clinical syndrome. Br Med J 1976; 1: 1058–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Frances A. Problems in defining clinical significance in epidemiological studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55: 119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Grant BF, Dawson D, Hasin D. The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule‐DSM‐IV version (AUDADIS‐IV). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  13. Grant BF, Moore T, Kaplan K. Source and Accuracy Statement: Wave 1 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  14. Grant BF, Stinson FS, Dawson D, Chou S, Dufour M, Compton W, Pickering R, Kaplan K. Prevalence and co‐occurrence of substance use disorders and independent mood and anxiety disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004; 61: 807–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hall W, Teesson M, Lynskey M, Degenhardt L. The 12‐month prevalence of substance use and ICD‐10 substance use disorders in Australian adults: findings from the National Survey of Mental Health and Well‐being. Addiction 1999; 94: 1541–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jellinek EM. Phases in the drinking history of alcoholics: analysis of a survey conducted by the official organ of Alcoholics Anonymous. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1946; 7: 1–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jorm A. National surveys of mental disorders: are they researching scientific facts or constructing useful myths? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2006; 40: 830–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kellam SG, Ensminger ME, Turner RJ. Family structure and the mental health of children. Concurrent and longitudinal community‐wide studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1977; 34: 1012–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Narrow W, Rae D, Robins L, Regier DA. Revised prevalence estimates of mental disorders: using a clinical significance criterion to reconcile two surveys' estimates. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59: 115–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Petronis KR, Anthony JC. A different kind of contextual effect: geographical clustering of cocaine incidence in the USA. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003; 57: 893–900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Pincus HA, Zarin D, First M. ‘Clinical significance’ and DSM‐IV. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55: 1145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Regier DA, Kaelber CT, Rae DS, Farmer ME, Knauper B, Kessler RC, Norquist GS. Limitations of diagnostic criteria and assessment instruments for mental disorders. Implications for research and policy [see comments]. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55: 109–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Robins E, Guze S. Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: its application to schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 1970; 126: 983–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Robins L. Using survey results to improve the validity of the standard psychiatric nomenclature. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004; 61: 1188–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Robins L, Helzer J, Croughan J, Ratcliff K. National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: its history, characteristics and validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1981a; 38: 381–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Robins L, Helzer J, Croughan J, Williams J, Spitzer R. NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Archives of General Psychiatry. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, 1981b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Robins L, Helzer J, Croughan J, Williams J, Spitzer R. NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, 1981c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Spitzer R. Diagnosis and need for treatment are not the same. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55: 120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Stetser M, Shepherd J, Moore T. Using the Census 2000/2001 Supplementary Survey as a sampling frame for the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Joint Statistical Meetings – Section on Survey Research Methods, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  30. Teesson M, Hall W, Lynskey M, Degenhardt L. Alcohol and drug use disorders in Australia: implications of the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2000; 34: 206–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Vaillant G. The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wagner FA, Anthony JC. From first drug use to drug dependence; developmental periods of risk for dependence upon marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol. Neuropsychopharmacology 2002; 26: 479–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. World Health Organization . The ICD‐10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders – Diagnostic Criteria for Research. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1993. [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES