RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: DSM-5 tobacco use disorder (TUD) nosology differs from DSM-IV nicotine dependence (ND) by including craving and DSM-IV abuse criteria, a lower threshold (≥ 2 criteria), and severity levels (mild; moderate; severe). We assessed concurrent and prospective validity of the DSM-5 TUD diagnosis and severity and compared validity with DSM-IV ND diagnosis. METHODS: The sample included U.S. adults with current problematic substance use and past year cigarette smoking (N = 396). Baseline assessment collected information on DSM-IV ND and DSM-5 TUD criteria, smoking-related variables, and psychopathology. Over the following 90 days, electronic daily assessments queried smoking and cigarette craving. Variables expected to be related to TUD were validators: cigarette consumption, cigarette craving scale, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence, and psychiatric disorders. Regression models estimated the association of each validator with DSM-5 TUD and severity levels, and differential association between DSM-5 TUD and DSM-IV ND diagnoses. RESULTS: DSM-5 TUD and DSM-IV ND were associated with most baseline validators (p-values < 0.05), with significantly stronger associations with DSM-5 TUD for number of days smoked (p = 0.023) and cigarette craving scale (p = 0.007). Baseline DSM-5 TUD and DSM-IV ND predicted smoking and craving on any given day during follow-up, with stronger associations for DSM-5 TUD (association difference [95% CI%]: any smoking, 0.53 [0.27, 0.77]; number of cigarettes smoked, 1.36 [0.89, 1.78]; craving scale, 0.19 [0.09, 0.28]). Validators were associated with TUD severity in a dose-dependent manner. CONCLUSION: DSM-5 TUD diagnostic measures as operationalized here demonstrated concurrent and prospective validity. Inclusion of new criteria, particularly craving, improved validity and clinical relevance.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias , Tabaquismo , Adulto , Ansia , Manual Diagnóstico y Estadístico de los Trastornos Mentales , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Tabaquismo/diagnóstico , Tabaquismo/psicologíaRESUMEN
AIM: In DSM-5, the definitions of substance use disorders (SUD) were changed considerably, yet little is known about the reliability of DSM-5 SUD and its new features. METHODS: The test-retest reliability of DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV substance dependence (SD) was evaluated in 565 adult substance users, each interviewed twice by different clinician interviewers using the semi-structured Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 version (PRISM-5). DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV SD criteria were assessed for past year and lifetime, yielding diagnoses and severity levels for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, opioids, sedatives, hallucinogen, and stimulant use disorders. Cohen's and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) assessed reliability for categorical and graded outcomes, respectively. Factors potentially influencing reliability were explored, including inpatient vs. community participant, days between interviews gender, age, race/ethnicity, and SUD severity. RESULTS: DSM-5 SUD diagnoses had substantial to excellent reliability for most substances (κ = 0.63-0.94), and moderate for others (hallucinogens, stimulants, sedatives; κ = 0.50-0.59). For graded outcomes (DSM-5 SUD mild, moderate, severe; criteria count 0-11), reliability was substantial to excellent (ICC = 0.74-0.99). Comparisons of DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV SD reliability showed few significant differences. Reliability of the DSM-5 craving criterion was excellent for heroin (κ = 0.84-0.95) and moderate to substantial for other substances (κ = 0.49-0.76). The only factor influencing reliability of SUD was severity, with milder disorders significantly more likely to be discordant between the interviews. CONCLUSION: Reproducibility is crucial to good measurement. In a large sample using rigorous methodology, diagnoses and dimensional measures from clinician-administered interviews for DSM-5 SUD were generally highly reliable.