NCJ Number
195855
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 66 Issue: 1 Dated: June 2002 Pages: 27-29
Date Published
June 2002
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This study compared oral fluid testing to assess recent drug use with laboratory urinalysis regarding sensitivity and specificity; arrestees were also interviewed to obtain their opinions on this less invasive method.
Abstract
Data collection was conducted at Central Booking in Baltimore City between February 27 and March 30, 2001. Each day field staff obtained a list of arrestees who had been in custody for less than 48 hours. Arrestees were selected for interviews by using a systematic random sampling procedure. Following the interview, a urine specimen was requested. Samples were shipped to a single laboratory that used the Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Test (EMIT) to screen for amphetamines, marijuana, metabolite cocaine, opiates, and PCP. All amphetamine positives were confirmed by gas chromatography. The oral fluid specimen was solicited after the urine specimen had been collected. Under the direct supervision of the interviewer, the respondent took the swab from the Intercept Oral Specimen Collection Device (IOSCD) and rubbed it between the lower cheek and gums for 2 minutes. The swab was then pushed into a vial, and the vial was capped. Urine and oral fluid specimens were collected from a total of 284 adult arrestees. Although laboratory urinalysis and oral fluid testing with the IOSCD detected almost identical rates of recent cocaine and opiate use, oral fluid testing detected only about half of the marijuana users identified by urinalysis. Anecdotal reports from interview staff confirmed that the IOSCD was preferable to urine collection because of its ease of use and storage as well as its minimal personal invasiveness. The IOSCD costs approximately $20 per specimen compared with $10 per specimen for urinalysis. Over time, however, the cost of the IOSCD will decrease as its popularity increases. Researchers could then be satisfied that oral fluid collection and analysis is accurate, cost-effective, and minimally invasive. 3 tables and 10 references