The CIDI is a fully standardised, structured interview for the assessment of psychiatric disorders according to DSM-II-R and proposed ICD-10 criteria. The development of this interview has been the collaborative effort of researchers from 18 sites around the world. In a field trial to test the cross-cultural acceptability and reliability of the questions, there was found to be high acceptance and excellent reliability for the substance use questions, problems with the lengthy alcohol section, and difficulties translating relevant substance use concepts into different languages. There is therefore room for further improvement in the substance-related questions. There proved to be differences between ICD-10 and DSM-III-R regarding substance abuse and dependence disorders.

Die Arbeit gibt einen methodenkritischen Überblick über die in Deutschland vorliegenden Ergebnisse zur Prävalenz sowie Risikofaktoren von Substanzmißbrauch und -abhängigkeit (SMA). Es wird gezeigt, daß die vorliegenden epidemiologischen Studien unvollständig und methodisch unbefriedigend sind. Vor allem die fehlende Erfassung spezifischer diagnostischer Kriterien zur Ableitung klinisch relevanter Mißbrauchs- und Abhängigkeitsstörungen erschwert eine Interpretation der Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Repräsentativerhebungen. Diese geben zwar aussagekräftige populationsbezogene Informationen über die Häufigkeit und Verteilungsmuster von legalen und illegalen Substanzen, klinisch relevante Beurteilungsaspekte wie z.B. zu Schweregrad, Toleranz und Abstinenzproblemen sowie zu Einstieg und Verlauf der "Sucht"-Problematik fehlen jedoch vollständig. Dies trifft auch für Untersuchungen zu Risikofaktoren zu. Als ein durchgängiger Mangel wird ferner die Erfassungsmethodologie angesehen, die sich bislang fast ausschließlich auf Fragebögen oder Interviews stützt, über deren Reliabilität und Validität nur unzureichende psychometrische Daten vorliegen. / A critical review of prevalence and risk factor studies of substance abuse and dependence in Germany is presented. It is shown that currently available epidemiological data are incomplete due to the failure of instruments to allow for a detailed assessment of specific substance use disorders. The neglect of diagnostic criteria for clinically significant abuse and dependence disorders makes it especially difficult to draw conclusions about the results of representative surveys. Although the give clear population-related information about frequency and distribution patterns of legal and illegal substancees, relevant clinical data regarding aspects such as severity, tolerance, problems of abstinence, onset and course of abuse and dependence are completely lacking. This is also true of studies on risk factors. An additional problem is diagnostic assessment based almost exclusively on questionnaires and interviews whose reliability and validity have not been sufficiently established.

Die Arbeit gibt einen methodenkritischen Überblick über die in Deutschland vorliegenden Ergebnisse zur Prävalenz sowie Risikofaktoren von Substanzmißbrauch und -abhängigkeit (SMA). Es wird gezeigt, daß die vorliegenden epidemiologischen Studien unvollständig und methodisch unbefriedigend sind. Vor allem die fehlende Erfassung spezifischer diagnostischer Kriterien zur Ableitung klinisch relevanter Mißbrauchs- und Abhängigkeitsstörungen erschwert eine Interpretation der Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Repräsentativerhebungen. Diese geben zwar aussagekräftige populationsbezogene Informationen über die Häufigkeit und Verteilungsmuster von legalen und illegalen Substanzen, klinisch relevante Beurteilungsaspekte wie z.B. zu Schweregrad, Toleranz und Abstinenzproblemen sowie zu Einstieg und Verlauf der "Sucht"-Problematik fehlen jedoch vollständig. Dies trifft auch für Untersuchungen zu Risikofaktoren zu. Als ein durchgängiger Mangel wird ferner die Erfassungsmethodologie angesehen, die sich bislang fast ausschließlich auf Fragebögen oder Interviews stützt, über deren Reliabilität und Validität nur unzureichende psychometrische Daten vorliegen. / A critical review of prevalence and risk factor studies of substance abuse and dependence in Germany is presented. It is shown that currently available epidemiological data are incomplete due to the failure of instruments to allow for a detailed assessment of specific substance use disorders. The neglect of diagnostic criteria for clinically significant abuse and dependence disorders makes it especially difficult to draw conclusions about the results of representative surveys. Although the give clear population-related information about frequency and distribution patterns of legal and illegal substancees, relevant clinical data regarding aspects such as severity, tolerance, problems of abstinence, onset and course of abuse and dependence are completely lacking. This is also true of studies on risk factors. An additional problem is diagnostic assessment based almost exclusively on questionnaires and interviews whose reliability and validity have not been sufficiently established.

The CIDI is a fully standardised, structured interview for the assessment of psychiatric disorders according to DSM-II-R and proposed ICD-10 criteria. The development of this interview has been the collaborative effort of researchers from 18 sites around the world. In a field trial to test the cross-cultural acceptability and reliability of the questions, there was found to be high acceptance and excellent reliability for the substance use questions, problems with the lengthy alcohol section, and difficulties translating relevant substance use concepts into different languages. There is therefore room for further improvement in the substance-related questions. There proved to be differences between ICD-10 and DSM-III-R regarding substance abuse and dependence disorders.

Background: Rates of accidental overdose mortality from substance use disorder (SUD) have risen dramatically in the United States since 1990. Between 1999 and 2004 alone rates increased 62% nationwide, with rural overdose mortality increasing at a rate 3 times that seen in urban populations. Cultural differences between rural and urban populations (e.g., educational attainment, unemployment rates, social characteristics, etc.) affect the nature of SUD, leading to disparate risk of overdose across these communities. Methods: Multiple-groups latent class analysis with covariates was applied to data from the 2011 and 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (n=12.140) to examine potential differences in latent classifications of SUD between rural and urban adult (aged 18 years and older) populations. Nine drug categories were used to identify latent classes of SUD defined by probability of diagnosis within these categories. Once the class structures were established for rural and urban samples, posterior membership probabilities were entered into a multinomial regression analysis of socio-demographic predictors' association with the likelihood of SUD latent class membership. Results: Latent class structures differed across the sub-groups, with the rural sample fitting a 3-class structure (Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test P value=0.03) and the urban fitting a 6-class model (Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test P valueThis result supports the hypothesis that different underlying elements exist in the two populations that affect SUD patterns, and thus can inform the development of surveillance instruments, clinical services, and prevention programming tailored to specific communities.