Results: 1) Inter-informant agreement was in the fair to good range for all specific substance use disorders 2) the family history method provided prevalence estimates that did not differ from those based on direct interviews for alcohol disorders, but underestimated the prevalence of specific drug disorders 3) lowering of diagnostic thresholds and combining multiple family histories increased the accuracy of prevalence estimates for drug disorders 4) female gender of index subjects was associated with higher agreement for all disorders and 5) except for alcohol dependence and marijuana abuse, informants who themselves had a history of the same substance use disorder were more likely to detect this disorder in their relatives.Ĭonclusions: Agreement between the family history and the direct interview method is generally satisfactory for specific substance disorders.

Diagnoses of substance use disorders from the direct interviews were compared to those derived from the information provided by first-degree relatives and spouses. Methods: Within a controlled family study including alcohol and heroin dependent probands, 1624 index - informant subject pairs were identified. The aims of the present study were to: 1) assess the agreement for diagnoses of specific substance use disorders (alcohol, narcotics, marijuana abuse and dependence), between the direct interview and the family history method 2) compare prevalence estimates according to the two methods 3) test means to improve prevalence estimates of family history reports compared to those of direct interviews 4) test covariates of inter-informant agreement, and 5) test the likelihood of reporting disorders by informants.

Objectives: Family studies typically use multiple sources of information on each individual including direct interviews and family history information.

Informant synonym