4.2 Article

Substance Use Disorders Assessed Using the Kreek-McHugh-Schluger-Kellogg (KMSK) Scale in an Urban Low-Income and Predominantly African American Sample of Primary Care Patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 292-299

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2011.00121.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [UL1 TR000454] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1 RR025008] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDA NIH HHS [K02 DA015766, K02 DA015766-05, DA015766, K02 DA015766-04] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH071537, R01 MH071537-05, R01 MH071537-04, R01 MH071537-01A1, MH069884, R01 MH071537-03S1, K01 MH069884, R56 MH071537, R01 MH071537-02, MH071537, R01 MH071537-07, R01 MH071537-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Kreek-McHugh-Schluger-Kellogg (KMSK) scale was developed to quantify self-exposure to opiates, cocaine, alcohol, and tobacco. The original study was limited by a relatively small sample that was not representative of general clinical populations, and did not include marijuana exposure. For the current study, participants were recruited from primary care outpatient clinics in an urban public hospital. The primary measure was the KMSK scale. The Structured Interview for Diagnosis for DSM-IV (SCID) was used as the gold standard for substance dependence diagnoses, and the results of KMSK assessments were evaluated using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. The sample (n = 439) was predominantly African American (90.6%), with mean age (+/- SD) of 43.1 +/- 12.8 years. ROC analyses found that the optimal cutoff scores for alcohol dependence were the same as suggested previously (11), while they were lower for cocaine dependence (10 vs. 11) and opiate dependence (4 vs. 9). The analysis suggested a cutoff score of 8 for marijuana. The KMSK performed well in the current study as a brief tool for evaluating dependence on alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, and opiates in this nonpsychiatric clinic sample of predominantly poor urban African Americans. (Am J Addict 2011;00:1-8).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据