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

OBJECTIVES: Family 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. METHODS: Analyses were based on family study data which included 1621 distinct informant (first-degree relatives and spouses) - index subject pairs. RESULTS: Our 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. CONCLUSION: Our findings have important implications for the best-estimate procedure applied in family studies.