Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Access
  • Cited by 1


      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Letter to the Editor: Critique of Bahorik et al. (2013) – 'Under-reporting of drug use among individuals with schizophrenia: prevalence and predictors'
        Available formats

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Letter to the Editor: Critique of Bahorik et al. (2013) – 'Under-reporting of drug use among individuals with schizophrenia: prevalence and predictors'
        Available formats

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Letter to the Editor: Critique of Bahorik et al. (2013) – 'Under-reporting of drug use among individuals with schizophrenia: prevalence and predictors'
        Available formats
Export citation

Scientific consensus indicates that adults with serious mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, can validly and reliably self-report (Swanson et al. 2006; Lincoln et al. 2010; Baumstarck et al. 2013) intra-psychic, cognitive, and behavioural functioning, including drug use (Wolford et al. 1999). Bahorik and colleagues (2013) depart from this viewpoint, concluding that adults with schizophrenia significantly under-reported drug use in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study. However, there are reasons to question their findings.

Representativeness of analytical sample

Bahorik and colleagues' analytical sample consisted of 1042 patients with schizophrenia; the full CATIE trial included 1460 patients (Reimherr et al. 2010). Based on their stated sample selection criteria, they should have analysed a larger sample: at baseline there were 1445 urine drug screens (UDS) and 1130 radioimmunoassays (RIAs) of hair. The only way to arrive close to N = 1042 would be by first selecting those with a valid hair RIA. Moreover, comparisons between patients selected in and out of their analytical sample were not reported; characteristics may have differed systematically between those who did and did not have RIA results.

Selective inclusion and exclusion of UDS data

Bahorik and colleagues used RIAs of hair as a gold standard and first-order inclusion criterion, a measure that was missing for over one-fifth of all CATIE participants, but then discarded one-quarter of valid UDS data for the remaining participants. Specifically, they excluded participants who did not have a valid RIA of hair (even if they did have a valid UDS), but included UDS for participants who had a valid RIA of hair. If it is appropriate to include UDS for some participants, then it is appropriate to include UDS for all participants. If Bahorik and colleagues were interested in matching the 90-day RIA of hair detection period with the 90-day retrospective self-report, they should have excluded all UDS results, which generally detect use over a shorter period of time (DuPont & Baumgartner, 1995; Verstraete, 2004). Still, it has been argued that RIA of hair should not be used as a gold standard (Ledgerwood et al. 2008).

Conflicting results

Bahorik and colleagues' finding that, ‘rates of under-reported drug use are considerable’ is not replicable when using all available CATIE data, as shown in our prior paper (Van Dorn et al. 2012), as well as in analyses undertaken for this letter. First, of 1448 patients for whom self-report and biological test data were available, 155 (10.7%) patients denied drug use, but had a positive biological test, while 114 (7.9%) patients self-reported drug use, but had negative biological tests, suggesting that patients were almost as likely to over-report as they were to under-report. Second, Bahorik and colleagues show a negative predictive value and a positive predictive value of 0.72 and 0.76, respectively, for any drug use; we found values of 0.89 and 0.61. They report sensitivity and specificity of 0.42 and 0.91; we found values of 0.68 and 0.86. Their kappa of 0.37 improved to 0.52 in our reanalysis. Third, we computed areas under the curve (AUC) of receiver-operating characteristic of self-report compared to biological tests and found acceptable, not poor, accuracy (AUC = 0.73, s.e. = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.70–77). While it is beyond the scope of this letter, there is also reason to question the validity of Bahorik and colleagues' multivariable results in light of these divergent findings. Fourth, Bahorik and colleagues do not report how they handled positive biological tests attributable to prescribed medication. Prior CATIE publications (Swartz et al. 2006; Van Dorn et al. 2012; Desmarais et al. 2013) describe a protocol for handling such situations: participants who test positive for a prescribed medication in biological tests are not considered to be using. Given their claim of increased under-reporting compared to those reported herein and in prior CATIE publications, the possibility that Bahorik and colleagues (mis)attributed under-reporting to appropriate use of prescribed medications should not be overlooked.

Representation of extant research

Bahorik and colleagues' representation of the extant research also deserves comment. They assert that adults with schizophrenia are at increased risk of under-reporting drug use during an ‘acute crisis, but not when their symptoms were stabilized’, citing Stone and colleagues (1993); yet, there is nothing to support this statement in the Stone et al. paper. The authors also cite Møller & Linaker's (2010) study of 48 patients, stating that approximately 14% under-reported ‘their use of drugs’. However, Møller & Linaker found that one in seven patients under-reported their drug use problems compared to clinician ratings on the Drug Use Scale (DUS), which is not the same as under-reporting their drug use. Moreover, research shows that DUS ratings frequently over-identify disordered use (Desmarais et al. 2013). Bahorik and colleagues also misreport the findings of Galletly and colleagues (1993): one-quarter of patients – not all patients, as Bahorik and colleagues state – who had a positive UDS failed to disclose their drug use. Finally, Bahorik and colleagues' argument that self-report measures ‘could considerably underestimate actual rates of use’ in outpatient samples is not supported by contemporary research. Research on inpatient samples from the late 1980s and early 1990s showed under-reporting of drug use; however, more recent research concludes that self-report is an accurate approach to assessing drug use (Wolford et al. 1999; Van Dorn et al. 2012; Desmarais et al. 2013).


Bahorik and colleagues' efforts to examine the potential for under-reporting drug use in the CATIE data are laudable. In contrast with their conclusions, findings presented herein and in our previous publications are consistent with previous research showing that individuals with schizophrenia can adequately and accurately self-report their substance use. In fact, biological tests add little incrementally to the accuracy of multi-modal assessment protocols (Wolford et al. 1999; Van Dorn et al. 2012; Desmarais et al. 2013). As Bahorik and colleagues note, ‘much remains to be learned’ about the reporting of drug use in this population; however, their framing of the research, sample selection, findings, and conclusions misconstrue the relationship between self-report and biological tests in the CATIE data.


Funding for Dr Van Dorn's time was provided by NIDA Award number 1R03DA030850 to Dr Van Dorn. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIDA or the NIH.

Declaration of Interest



Bahorik, AL, Newhill, CE, Queen, CC, Eack, SM (2013). Under-reporting of drug use among individuals with schizophrenia: prevalence and predictors. Psychological Medicine. Published online 3 04 2013 . doi:10.1017/S0033291713000548.
Baumstarck, K, Boyer, L, Boucekine, M, Aghababian, V, Parola, N, Lançon, C, Auquier, P (2013). Self-reported quality of life measure is reliable and valid in adult patients suffering from schizophrenia with executive impairment. Schizophrenia Research 147, 5867.
Desmarais, SL, Van Dorn, RA, Sellers, BG, Young, MS, Swartz, MS (2013). Accuracy of self-report, biological tests, collateral reports and clinician ratings in identifying substance use disorders among adults with schizophrenia. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 27, 774787.
DuPont, RL, Baumgartner, WA (1995). Drug testing by urine and hair analysis: Complementary features and scientific issues. Forensic Science International 70, 6376.
Galletly, CA, Field, CD, Prior, M (1993). Urine drug screening of patients admitted to a state psychiatric hospital. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 44, 587587.
Ledgerwood, DM, Goldberger, BA, Risk, NK, Lewis, CE, Kato Price, R (2008). Comparison between self-report and hair analysis of illicit drug use in a community sample of middle-aged men. Addictive Behaviors 33, 11311139.
Lincoln, TM, Ziegler, M, Lüllmann, E, Müller, MJ, Rief, W (2010). Can delusions be self-assessed? Concordance between self- and observer-rated delusions in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research 178, 249254.
Møller, T, Linaker, OM (2010). Using brief self-reports and clinician scales to screen for substance use disorders in psychotic patients. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 64, 130135.
Reimherr, F, Swartz, MS, Olsen, JL (2010). Substance use in persons with schizophrenia: Incidence, baseline correlates, and effects on outcome. In Antipsychotic Trials in Schizophrenia: The CATIE Project (ed. Stroup, T. S. and Lieberman, J. A.), pp. 189206. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Stone, AM, Greenstein, RA, Gamble, G, McLellan, AT (1993). Cocaine use by schizophrenic outpatients who receive depot neuroleptic medication. Hospital & Community Psychiatry 44, 176177.
Swanson, JW, Swartz, MS, Van Dorn, RA, Elbogen, EB, Wagner, HR, Rosenheck, RA, Stroup, TS, McEvoy, JP, Lieberman, JA (2006). A national study of violent behavior in persons with schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry 63, 490499.
Swartz, MS, Wagner, HR, Swanson, JW, Stroup, TS, McEvoy, JP, Canive, JM, Miller, DD, Reimherr, F, McGee, M, Khan, A, Van Dorn, RA, Rosenheck, RA, Lieberman, JA (2006). Substance use in persons with schizophrenia: baseline prevalence and correlates from the NIMH CATIE study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 194, 164172.
Van Dorn, RA, Desmarais, SL, Young, MS, Sellers, BG, Swartz, MS (2012). Assessing illicit drug use among adults with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research 200, 228236.
Verstraete, AG (2004). Detection times of drugs of abuse in blood, urine, and oral fluid. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring 26, 200205.
Wolford, GL, Rosenberg, SD, Drake, RE, Mueser, KT, Oxman, TE, Hoffman, D, Vidaver, RM, Luckoor, R, Carrieri, KL (1999). Evaluation of methods for detecting substance use disorder in persons with severe mental illness. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 13, 313326.