MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3123483514 · doi:10.2196/23872

The Psychosocial Predictors and Day-Level Correlates of Substance Use Among Participants Recruited via an Online Crowdsourcing Platform in the United States: Daily Diary Study

2021· article· en· W3123483514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Jain, Claudine Offer, Christopher Rowe, Caitlin Turner, Carol Dawson‐Rose, Thomas J. Hoffmann, Glenn‐Milo Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsPsychosocialStimulantPsychological interventionAffect (linguistics)MedicineLogistic regressionPsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychologyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption and stimulant use are major public health problems and contribute to morbidity and mortality in the United States. To inform interventions for substance use, there is a need to identify the day-level correlates of substance use by collecting repeated measures data in one's natural environment. There is also a need to use crowdsourcing platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to efficiently engage larger populations of people who use alcohol and stimulants in research. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to (1) utilize daily diaries to examine the temporal relationship between day-level cravings for alcohol and stimulant/substance use (ie, heavy drinking or any drug use) in a given day over 14 days and (2) assess whether depression, negative affect, and self-esteem measured at baseline predict substance use in a given day over 14 days among people who use alcohol and/or stimulants in the United States. METHODS: Individuals aged ≥18 years in the United States, who reported alcohol or stimulant (ie, cocaine, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine) use in the past year, were recruited using MTurk between March 26 and April 13, 2018. Eligible participants completed a baseline survey and 14 daily surveys online. The baseline survey assessed sociodemographics and psychosocial (ie, depression, affect, self-esteem, and stress) factors. Daily surveys assessed substance use and cravings for alcohol and stimulants. Four multivariable random-intercept logistic regression models were built to examine psychosocial constructs separately along with other significant predictors from bivariate analyses while controlling for age and education. RESULTS: Among a total of 272 participants, 220 were White, 201 were male, and 134 were men who have sex with men (MSM). The mean age was 36.1 years (SD 10.5). At baseline, 173 participants engaged in any current or past hazardous alcohol consumption, 31 reported using cocaine, 19 reported using methamphetamine, 8 reported using crack cocaine, and 104 reported any noninjection or injection drug use in the past 6 months. Factors independently associated with substance use were depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21; P=.01), negative affect (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16; P=.01), lower levels of self-esteem (aOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.98; P=.02), and cravings for alcohol (aOR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03; P<.001) and stimulants (aOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04; P=.01). MSM had higher odds of engaging in substance use in all models (model 1: aOR 4.90, 95% CI 1.28-18.70; P=.02; model 2: aOR 5.47, 95% CI 1.43-20.87; P=.01; model 3: aOR 5.99, 95% CI 1.55-23.13; P=.009; and model 4: aOR 4.94, 95% CI 1.29-18.84; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions for substance use should utilize evidenced-based approaches to reduce depression, negative affect, and cravings; increase self-esteem; and engage MSM. Interventions may also consider leveraging technology-based approaches to reduce substance use among populations who use crowdsourcing platforms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→