IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1997873352-358_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cocaine use during pregnancy: Sensitive detection by hair assay

Author

Listed:
  • Kline, J.
  • Ng, S.K.C.
  • Schittini, M.
  • Levin, B.
  • Susser, M.

Abstract

Objectives. This paper compares the sensitivity of two tests of cocaine use, interview and urine test, with that of a radioimmunoassay of hair. Methods. Interviews and hair samples were provided by 397 obstetric patients in one New York City hospital; urine samples were obtained in 377. Of these patients, 241 were receiving prenatal care (were registered) and 156 delivered without prenatal care (were unregistered). The 241 registered patients were derived from 400, comprising all reporting use of cocaine ever ('everusers'), all reporting use by the father but not themselves ('lifestylers'), and a sample of women who were neither ever-users nor lifestylers. The 156 unregistered patients were derived from 352 women interviewed at delivery, unselected for reported use. Results. Thirty-two percent reported ever using cocaine, 45% of these within 6 months before interview. Urine tests were positive in 20%, hair tests in 59%. The estimated sensitivity of the hair test (92%) was 3.1 times higher than that of the urine test (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5, 3.8) and 4 times higher than that of reported use in the past 6 months (95% CI = 3.2, 5.0). Conclusions. Self-report and urine tests alone miss most of cocaine users during pregnancy. Hair tests greatly improve detection and thus can enhance evaluations of the effects of prenatal cocaine use on fetal and child development.

Suggested Citation

  • Kline, J. & Ng, S.K.C. & Schittini, M. & Levin, B. & Susser, M., 1997. "Cocaine use during pregnancy: Sensitive detection by hair assay," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(3), pages 352-358.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1997:87:3:352-358_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1997:87:3:352-358_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.