Inter-informant agreement and prevalence estimates for substance use disorders: Direct interview versus family history method

ObjectivesFamily studies typically use multiple sources of information on each individual including direct interviews and family history information. The aims of the present study were to: (1) assess agreement for diagnoses of specific substance use disorders between direct interviews and the family history method; (2) compare prevalence estimates according to the two methods; (3) test strategies to approximate prevalence estimates according to family history reports to those based on direct interviews; (4) determine covariates of inter-informant agreement; and (5) identify covariates that affect the likelihood of reporting disorders by informants.MethodsAnalyses were based on family study data which included 1621 distinct informant (first-degree relatives and spouses) – index subject pairs.ResultsOur main findings were: (1) inter-informant agreement was fair to good for all substance disorders, except for alcohol abuse; (2) the family history method underestimated the prevalence of drug but not alcohol use disorders; (3) lowering diagnostic thresholds for drug disorders and combining multiple family histories increased the accuracy of prevalence estimates for these disorders according to the family history method; (4) female sex of index subjects was associated with higher agreement for nearly all disorders; and (5) informants who themselves had a history of the same substance use disorder were more likely to report this disorder in their relatives, which entails the risk of overestimation of the size of familial aggregation.ConclusionOur findings have important implications for the best-estimate procedure applied in family studies.