Adiktologie template by Missing Element

12 DECEMBER 2018

www.adiktologie.cz

Adiktologie

PROFFESIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PREVENTION, TREATMENT OF, AND RESERCH INTO ADDICTION

No 4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A Successful Strategy for Linking Anonymous Data from Students’ and Parents’ Questionnaires Using Self-Generated Identification Codes Vacek, J. – Vonkova, H. – Gabrhelík, R. REVIEW ARTICLE

Meditation Analysis in Substance Use Prevention Orosová, O.

MEMBER OF THE ISAJE –International Society of Addiction Journal Editors COVERED BY Scopus & EMCare,Bibliographia Medica Čechoslovaca ISSN 1213-3841 MKČR E 12656 DOI: 10.2801/322719 Vydává SCAN, z.s.

12 DECEMBER 2018

Adiktologie

PROFFESIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PREVENTION, TREATMENT OF, AND RESERCH INTO ADDICTION

No 1

PUBLISHED IN COOPERATION WITH Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic Czech Society for Addictology PUBLISHED WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic Prague Municipal Authority, Prague, Czech Republic Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic Merck Sharp & Dohme s.r.o. Office of the Government of the Czech Republic, Secretariat of the Government Council for Drug Policy Coordination, Prague, Czech Republic CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS

MEMBER OF THE

Adiktologie Journal, Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic

ISAJE –International Society of Addiction Journal Editors

EMAIL ADDRESS AND WEB PAGES journal.adiktologie@lf1.cuni.cz, www.adiktologie.cz

COVERED BY Scopus & EMCare,Bibliographia Medica Čechoslovaca ISSN 1213-3841

Adiktologie is on the List of Peer-Reviewed Non-impact Factor Periodicals Published in the Czech Republic The articles published in Adiktologie are subject to a double-review procedure

MKČR E 12656 DOI: 10.2801/322719 Vydává SCAN, z.s.

ADIKTOLOGIE

PEOPLE

EDITORIAL BOARD STATISTICAL CONSULTANCY

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Prof. MUDr. Tomáš Zima, DrSc., MBA Institute of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic DEPUTY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Prof. PhDr. Michal Miovský, Ph.D. Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic EXECUTIVE EDITOR Mgr. Roman Gabrhelík, Ph.D. Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic MEMBERS OF EDITORIAL BOARD PhDr. Ladislav Csémy Prague Psychiatric Centre, Prague, Czech Republic Mgr. Hana Fidesová, Ph.D. Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic Prof. RNDr. Lumír Ondřej Hanuš, DrSc., Dr. h. c. Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Natural Products, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel Mgr. Miroslav Charvát, Ph.D. Prague Psychiatric Centre, Prague, Czech Republic Doc. MUDr. et PhDr. Kamil Kalina, CSc. Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic MUDr. Stanislav Kudrle Private Outpatient Psychiatric Clinic, Pilsen, Czech Republic Univ.-Prof. Dr. Otto Lesch Universitätsklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich Peter M. Miller, Ph.D. Center for Drug and Alcohol Programs, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, U.S.A.

MUDr. Viktor Mravčík, Ph.D. National Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction, Prague, Czech Republic Sylvie Mrug, Ph.D. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, U.S.A. MUDr. Ľubomír Okruhlica, CSc. Centre for Treatment of Drug Dependencies, Bratislava, Slovakia MUDr. Petr Popov, MHA Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic Kenzie L. Preston, Ph.D. NIH National Institute of Drug Abuse, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A. PhDr. Josef Radimecký, Ph.D., MSc. Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine , Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic PhDr. Iva Šolcová, Ph.D. Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic Mgr. Lenka Šťastná, Ph.D. Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic Prof. MUDr. Alexandra Šulcová, CSc. CEITEC (Central European Institute of Technology), Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic PharmDr. Magdaléna ŠustkováFišerová, Ph.D. Department of Pharmacology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Czech Republic PaedDr. Martina Tìmínová-Richterová SANANIM, Prague, Czech Republic Wouter Vanderplasschen, Ph.D. Department of Orthopedagogics, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium Mgr. Jindřich Vobořil, MSc. Office of the Government of the Czech Republic, Secretariat of the Government Council for Drug Policy Coordination, Prague, Czech Republic MUDr. Tomáš Zábranský, Ph.D. Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic

Mgr. Jaroslav Vacek Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic PhDr. RNDr. Hana Voňková, Ph.D. et Ph.D. Pedagogy Department, Faculty of Education, Charles University, Czech Republic CONSULTANTS MUDr. Pavel Bém Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic Prof. PhDr. Ivo Čermák, CSc. Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic MUDr. Stanislav Grof California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, USA Mgr. Danica Klempová European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal MUDr. Pavel Kubů Department of Medical Informatics, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Czech Republic Mgr. Aleš Kuda Prague Primary Prevention Centre, Prague, Czech Republich Mgr. Sylva Majtnerová-Kolářová A.N.O. – Association of NGOs Concerned with the Prevention and Treatment of Drug Addiction, Prague, Czech Republic MUDr. Jana Novotná Outpatient Psychiatric Clinic, Brno, Czech Republic Doc. PhDr. Vladimír Řehan Department of Psychology, Philosophical Faculty, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic. EDITOR PhDr. Michaela Malinová Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic DESIGN & LAYOUT Missing Element & Vladimír Vašek missing-element.com

ADIKTOLOGIE

Contents EDITORIAL Pudis arumqui quias sit lique non con consequia exerumr

Isimusciatio min cupta

ORIGINAL ARTICLES A Successful Strategy for Linking Anonymous Data from Students’ and Parents’ Questionnaires Using Self-Generated Identification Codes

Jaroslav Vacek – Hana Vonkova – Roman Gabrhelík

Pudis arumqui quias sit lique non con consequia exerum evenihi llabori taepudi ut et is et hictur

Isimusciatio min cupta sitemo dolum quia volut ut eaquat int

REVIEW ARTICLES Pudis arumqui quias sit lique non con consequia exerum evenihi taepudi ut et is et hictur min cupta sitemo

Isimusciatio min cupta sitemo dolum quia volut ut int

Pudis arumqui quias sit lique non con consequia exerum evenihi llabori taepudi ut et is et hictur Isimusciatio min cupta sitemo dolum quia volut eaquat int min cupta sitemo

Isimusciatio min cupta sitemo dolum quia volut ut eaquat int

Pudis arumqui quias sit lique non con consequia exerum evenihi llabori

Isimusciatio min cupta sitemo

Pudis arumqui quias sit lique non con consequia exerum evenihi taepudi ut et is et hictur min cupta sitemo

Isimusciatio min cupta sitemo dolum quia volut ut int

NEWS Pudis arumqui quias sit lique non con consequia exerum evenihi taepudi ut et is et hictur min cupta sitemo

Isimusciatio min cupta sitemo dolum quia volut ut int

Pudis arumqui quias sit lique non con consequia Isimusciatio min cupta sitemo dolum quia volut ut eaquat int

ADIKTOLOGIE

EDITORIAL

Taking time to stop and reflect Bus que autem ad quae. Ilit, velecabor ma vent hillab iducid eum volo moluptatat iurur, omnimo et vent es at quae corupta tquibus dolorias dolor soluptaspiti corehentem vendes restotate ped quo voluptatur? Ehendam ipidunt, tem verum escimusandel ipic tem volorru ptatiat ibusandictem ra quatiume volupta tquistrum et ipit, coriberia nobis essitati nectus ut voles aut as ex elluptat. Fuga. Id modi rerfero es esto voluptat quam faceatianda numquis ad quunt estibus. Udae quide eumquam, quia enis voluptate volupta temodit, sectur? Atiuribus molendebitia voluptiume lit acid qui tem facerna mentium iducil invenihit laborate cones de plabo. Giasint, quamusanti odi aborrum reperciis asimin consequiae quame nis ut dolupta soluptate corit, sam harum inuscius, num qui ressi corion postint audit esseditatis alit odicide mpores experfe riaecest qui dem aut faceriat iumet aliscip sanduciis volorep elique nonsed ea soluptam, ut molo odi con cum non resto mos andandanda ne cus aliquis as ut am quam ius assedi rae moluptat ide pratem iusae cus mi, serspedis sitaquate velestrum re quam, et qui te seque arciati oresequaturi dignihitatum et experov idignate nimus res a vollaci nus molupta tiistempor as dolest et, sunt qui dem voluptas autemqu istemquiatis as voluptam, quatin placid que nos iliquas sitae. Et et laborrum adi quia sit laboruptas molupta quatempor aut odis sinctatempos ius et porrum faceribera id eossimpercia intis plaborr oreribu saepedi ctionsenis as exero denimin ullant, aut la dolorru mquate nos aut laborepuda sim quiducias asperios nectin non pedicienet ipsae in pro beraect ionsentium sime pos res re, options edistis dem aceate vitassi tionsequi. Oria consedis peliquasped quis a nonsedit, id quae. Urecatur, seque ped experis es dolor sum que evelitiur aut etum quae rero bearum idebitis con nest ut que pro od que vidipsus restio. Et latquia vendae conseque conseceaquod molut quam si quo incto blacepelenda pere pa quis dus debisim agnienitium fugiam, corenda dolore nonet, ne essitatur? Qui corume consequi cuptatur, od quid moluptatio qui vitior andipsam nis et volorei ureruptisto es et harumentiis seditio rporeiciat. Empeliti tenda vendam qui del idunt quodit in conetur, sam ipicia dicimpos se nonsed ute corro eruntium rem natiassed magnatquis aut qui cus aut ommodit que sequos maximustiis ratus diorumet ullam, officatquam fugit ut por aut quam que sus sunt. Nus erruntur sin nos aut et prae ipsandi nihita eritium, ut vollab idebitis commoluptae ipic te velibusandi voluptur, ipienis nus, naturep tatius, sequam voluptae del ipis dolore quatum voluptatet ma ea quam qui que cuptat et, nobis ne pa pa dolecae di optatibus. Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem

des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur? Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur? Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur? Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur. Id modi rerfero es esto voluptat quam faceatianda numquis ad quunt estibus. Udae quide eumquam, quia enis voluptate volupta temodit, sectur? Atiuribus molendebitia voluptiume lit acid qui tem facerna mentium iducil invenihit laborate cones de plabo. Giasint, quamusanti1 odi aborrum reperciis asimin consequiae quame nis ut dolupta soluptate corit, sam harum inuscius, num qui ressi corion postint audit esseditatis alit odicide mpores experfe riaecest qui dem aut faceriat iumet aliscip sanduciis volorep elique nonsed ea soluptam, ut molo odi con cum non resto mos andandanda ne cus aliquis as ut am quam ius assedi rae moluptat ide pratem iusae cus mi, serspedis sitaquate velestrum re quam, et qui te seque arciati oresequaturi dignihitatum et experov idignate nimus res a vollaci nus molupta tiistempor as dolest et, sunt qui dem voluptas autemqu istemquiatis as voluptam, quatin placid que nos iliquas sitae. Et et laborrum adi quia sit laboruptas molupta quatempor aut odis sinctatempos ius et porrum faceribera id eossimpercia intis plaborr oreribu. Prague, 21st January Prof. PhDr. Michal Miovský, Ph.D.

1 | Moluptaquis moditatius, soluptus.Orepediscium quaeprestia

A Successful Strategy for Linking Anonymous Data from Students’ and Parents’ Questionnaires Using Self-Generated Identification Codes

ADIKTOLOGIE

DOI: 10.2801/322719

A Successful Strategy for Linking Anonymous Data from Students’ and Parents’...

C Jaroslav Vacek1 – Hana Vonkova1,2 – Roman Gabrhelík1 1 | Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Apolinářská 4, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic 2 | Department of Education and Institute for Research and Development of Education, Faculty of Education, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Citation | Berat fugitist quiatiur? Sed quiatia con explita quo quiature pore eum nonem eaquod quatem facium eat et pratur Xim velestia pro eossus. Ribeaque ant et officillam voluptae liatiumque mi, idiae iditiis doluptatem. Dolorem re volorro viducii squaspeliqui que quaerum nonsequibea volluptate omnihil ma et, culpa voluptatis nossitiis sequias sit lab ident rest, tem quissi.

Abstract | We conducted a feasibility study for matching children (N = 2571, average age 12 years, 50.4%female) and their parents (N = 1931, average age 41 years, 83.3% female) represented by an anonymous selfgenerated identification code (SGIC) and assessed its methodological properties.We used a nine-character SGIC with the children and a mirrored version of the same code with the parents. The average overall error rate in generating the SGIC was 9.7% (4.0%in the parents and 13.9% in the children). We were able to link a total of 1765 parents’ and children’s codes uniquely (94.9% of all possible dyads) with any four-character combination and the employment of the Bschool^ variable. The overall matching quality of linking using the SGIC only is characterized by precision (positive

predictive value) of 0.979, recall (sensitivity, true positive rate) of 0.934, and an F-measure (harmonic mean of precision and recall) of 0.956. The analysis of the discrepant characters in the dyads identified the paternal grandmother’s name and eye color as those varying most often. This study is the first to look at SGIC match rates and error and omission rates in linking different subjects into dyads in prevention research. We identified a high number of unique child-parent matches while guaranteeing anonymity to the participants. We provided evidence that our SGIC is a suitable tool for between-group linking procedures and has a highly successful matching rate, while maintaining anonymity in the schoolbased prevention study samples.

Keywords | Anonymity – Codes – Linking – Children – Students – Parents – Prevention

Submitted | 9. January

Accepted | 9. February 2018

Grand support | Udiam simusaperum autaqua tassimi niscima volupti ataeste officienis audaepta nisquame siminct otaquos is nullandit ent. Sediciur eiusandi doluptat. Viditi sit, aliquae rectati tecto blaccullaut eriorat ipsapit aquiaspicit volum ut reniet aut hillabo riorio. Ignat facitatet quat aut quam aciamenis accaboribus, si cusdant imenisit, cum quam estiorem re con parumen dignis quid et resecatio quodis accupta tioritaerum fugiaspe nobis soluptas invellam qui te dis et rerepta corerfera dolore con cusa sinimaximi, conecabores invent odition nemperi tiuntis aspelit moluptatur sinihitat a quas doloritis de sum ex exeris. Correspondence address | Roman Gabrhelík, 1 Department of Addictology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Apolinářská 4, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic

roman.gabrhelik@lf1.cuni.cz

ADIKTOLOGIE

1 INTRODUCTION Participation in prevention studies often requires respondents to answer sensitive questions about their risk behavior, such as sexual experiences or substance use. Maintaining anonymity appears necessary not only to obtain valid answers (Gfroerer and Kennet 2014) but also to protect the participants and their environment (family, school, etc.)—as generally required by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). A self-generated identification code (SGIC) is an anonymous identifier generated from information available to the participant but not to the researcher on the basis of identical instructions for all participants. Confidentiality (a limited number of individuals collecting or analyzing data can link the responses with individual study subjects) is grounded in the researcher’s moral claim to trustworthiness, while anonymity (the collection of no identifying information on individual subjects) is a functional attribute of the research design (Bjarnason and Adalbjarnardottir 2000). With an SGIC, researchers do not collect any information that could identify the participants, e.g., their names, addresses, or dates of birth. The advantage of using SGICs is that it helps overcome the complexity and administrative burden of linking sensitive individual-level data over multiple time points (within-group SGICs) without the need to acquire direct personal details and informed consent that may compromise the anonymity of potential respondents or their willingness to participate (Kristjansson et al. 2014). In addition to longitudinal research, the advantages of SGICs can be utilized in research designs with different study groups (between-group SGICs, e.g., children and their parents) where individuals need to be paired across the groups while preserving respondent anonymity. The SGIC usually consists of a combination of specific characters (letters and digits) derived from elements (sources of information, e.g., first, middle, or last names, names of pets, favorite clubs or mascots, or date of birth). One element can provide one or more characters for an SGIC. The number of elements used for generating an SGIC varies from three (McAlister and Gordon 1986), through four (Fernandez- Hermida et al. 2013; Kandel 1973; Lee et al. 2004; Wilson et al. 2010), five (Kristjansson et al. 2014), six (Grube et al. 1989), and seven (Galanti et al. 2007), to eight (Damrosch 1986; DiIorio et al. 2000). An SGIC can be used to link questionnaires, but cannot easily be associated with a specific respondent (Grube et al.1989). Codes of different lengths (numbers of characters) made up from different quantities of different elements (sources of information, e.g., first name) are used with varying success in matching participants. Stability, variability, and proximate relevance to the respondent are associated with lower error and omission rates, resulting in higher match rates (Yurek et al. 2008). Stability refers to the capacity of each element in the researcher-constructed question set to produce the same response every time it is answered. Variability refers to the capacity of the response options associated

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

with each element in the question set to differ sufficiently among the respondents. Elements with proximate relevance to the respondent pertain to the self rather than others (Schnell et al. 2010; Yurek et al. 2008), e.g., the initials of the respondent’s own name are more proximal than the initials of his/her grandmother’s name. In addition to stability, variability, and proximate relevance, Schnell et al. (2010) introduced the number of elements (complexity of the SGIC) as another important characteristic that affects the matching rate. They identified an overall tendency which shows that a constant decline in the number of false positives matches increasing complexity of the code. We found only two studies that reported on linking the SGICs of two study groups, but neither of these studies assessed the results of the linking procedure in experimental prevention studies. Kandel (1973) used eight-character SGIC based on the middle letters of first and last names, the date of birth, and the last two characters of telephone numbers to match adolescents’ questionnaires with those of their parents and/or best friends into dyads or triads. She was able to match 73.6% of all possible dyads, while 6% of the adolescents and 2% of the parents were not Bwilling or able to construct the code^ (Kandel 1973, p. 1070). FernandezHermida et al. (2013) used a ten-character SGIC in child and parent surveys that was made up of the first three letters of the mother’s name, the day of the month of the child’s date of birth (number), the first three letters of his/her name, and the number of the month of birth. The rate of all possible dyads matched was 69.95%. In a few cases (about 3%), Bthe code was wrong and matching was not feasible^ (FernandezHermida et al. 2013, p. 160). From a comparison of these two studies, it seems that matching was less successful with more characters, but the difference was rather small. This may seem to be contrary to the findings of Schnell et al. (2010) that the complexity of the SGIC increases the matching rate, but Fernandez-Hermida et al. (2013) used the same number of elements (four) to generate an SGIC as Kandel (1973), and their success rate of matching was about the same (70 vs 74%). SGICs are most often used in longitudinal studies to track respondents over multiple data collection points (e.g., Damrosch 1986; DiIorio et al. 2000; Galanti et al. 2007; Grube et al. 1989; Kristjansson et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2004). SGICs are used less often for pairing different groups (e.g., such as a parent and a child). Interestingly, the matching rate is reported to be lower for between-group SGICs (70–74%) as opposed to within-group SGICs, e.g., 91.9% by the off-one rule (the pairs of the resulting codes are declared as Bmatches if they differ at most by one character (Galanti et al. 2007)). There has been no study specifically focused on SGICs used for the pairing of two study groups in experimental prevention studies. Therefore, we conducted a feasibility study to assess the methodological properties (variability, proximate relevance to the respondent, and number of elements) of anonymous SGICs from children and their parents who participated in a school-based randomized controlled prevention trial. The specific aims of the study were as follows:

A Successful Strategy for Linking Anonymous Data from Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and Parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;...

(1) To estimate the characteristics of the code characters and elements by analyzing a) missing and wrong characters in order to determine the overall error rate in generating SGICs; b) the components of the SGIC that are attributable to the increased error in linked pairs; and (2) to calculate the efficiency of the anonymous linkage between the two groups (children and their parents).

2 MATERIAL AND METHODS BLABLA WORDS SHOWING LONGER HEADLINE TWO 2.1 Design and Sample Headline 3 Bus que autem ad quae. Ilit, velecabor ma vent hillab iducid eum volo moluptatat iurur, omnimo et vent es at quae corupta tquibus dolorias dolor soluptaspiti corehentem vendes restotate ped quo voluptatur? Ehendam ipidunt, tem verum escimusandel ipic tem volorru ptatiat ibusandictem ra quatiume volupta tquistrum et ipit, coriberia nobis essitati nectus ut voles aut as ex elluptat. Fuga. Id modi rerfero es esto voluptat quam faceatianda numquis ad quunt estibus. Udae quide eumquam, quia enis voluptate volupta temodit, sectur? Atiuribus molendebitia voluptiume lit acid qui tem facerna mentium iducil invenihit laborate cones de plabo. Giasint, quamusanti odi aborrum reperciis asimin consequiae quame nis ut dolupta soluptate corit, sam harum inuscius, num qui ressi corion postint audit esseditatis alit odicide mpores experfe riaecest qui dem aut faceriat iumet aliscip sanduciis volorep elique nonsed ea soluptam, ut molo odi con cum non resto mos andandanda ne cus aliquis as ut am quam ius assedi rae moluptat ide pratem iusae cus mi, serspedis sitaquate velestrum re quam, et qui te seque arciati oresequaturi dignihitatum et experov idignate nimus res a vollaci nus molupta tiistempor as dolest et, sunt qui dem voluptas autemqu istemquiatis as voluptam, quatin placid que nos iliquas sitae. Et et laborrum adi quia sit laboruptas molupta quatempor aut odis sinctatempos ius et porrum faceribera id eossimpercia intis plaborr oreribu saepedi ctionsenis as exero denimin ullant, aut la dolorru mquate nos aut laborepuda sim quiducias asperios nectin non pedicienet ipsae in pro beraect ionsentium sime pos res re, options edistis dem aceate vitassi tionsequi.

2.2 Self-Generated Identification Code and Linking Procedure Oria consedis peliquasped quis a nonsedit, id quae. Urecatur, seque ped experis es dolor sum que evelitiur aut etum quae rero bearum idebitis con nest ut que pro od que vidipsus restio. Et latquia vendae conseque conseceaquod molut quam si quo incto blacepelenda pere pa quis dus debisim agnienitium fugiam, corenda dolore nonet, ne essitatur? Qui corume consequi cuptatur, od quid moluptatio qui vitior andipsam nis et volorei ureruptisto es et harumentiis seditio rporeiciat.

ADIKTOLOGIE

Empeliti tenda vendam qui del idunt quodit in conetur, sam ipicia dicimpos se nonsed ute corro eruntium rem natiassed magnatquis aut qui cus aut ommodit que sequos maximustiis ratus diorumet ullam, officatquam fugit ut por aut quam que sus sunt. 2.2.1 Headline 4 is the last one, no more sub-headlines are allowed in this layout Nus erruntur sin nos aut et prae ipsandi nihita eritium, ut vollab idebitis commoluptae ipic te velibusandi voluptur, ipienis nus, naturep tatius, sequam voluptae del ipis dolore quatum voluptatet ma ea quam qui que cuptat et, nobis ne pa pa dolecae di optatibus. Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur? Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur? Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur? Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur.

ADIKTOLOGIE

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Character of SGIC

Frequency

Percent of all codes

Percent of all errors

child

parent

total

child

parent

total

child

parent

total

1. Third letter of child’s first name

0.11

0.05

2.11

1. Third letter of child’s first name

0.11

0.05

2.11

1. Third letter of child’s first name

0.11

0.05

2.11

1. Third letter of child’s first name

0.11

0.05

2.11

Table 1 | Frequency of missing or error digits

3 HEADLINE 2 IN ONE LINE Participation in prevention studies often requires respondents to answer sensitive questions about their risk behavior, such as sexual experiences or substance use. Maintaining anonymity appears necessary not only to obtain valid answers (Gfroerer and Kennet 2014) but also to protect the participants and their environment (family, school, etc.)—as generally required by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). A self-generated identification code (SGIC) is an anonymous identifier generated from information available to the participant but not to the researcher on the basis of identical instructions for all participants. Confidentiality (a limited number of individuals collecting or analyzing data can link the responses with individual study subjects) is grounded in the researcher’s moral claim to trustworthiness, while anonymity (the collection of no identifying information on individual subjects) is a functional attribute of the research design (Bjarnason and Adalbjarnardottir 2000). With an SGIC, researchers do not collect any information that could identify the participants, e.g., their names, addresses, or dates of birth. The advantage of using SGICs is that it helps overcome the complexity and administrative burden of linking sensitive individual-level data over multiple time points (within-group SGICs) without the need to acquire direct personal details and informed consent that may compromise the anonymity of potential respondents or their willingness to participate (Kristjansson et al. 2014). In addition to longitudinal research, the advantages of SGICs can be utilized in research designs with different study groups (between-group SGICs, e.g., children and their parents) where individuals need to be paired across the groups while preserving respondent anonymity. The SGIC usually consists of a combination of specific characters (letters and digits) derived from elements (sources of information, e.g., first, middle, or last names, names of pets, favorite clubs or mascots, or date of birth). One element can provide one or more characters for an SGIC. The number of elements used for generating an SGIC varies from three (McAlister and Gordon 1986), through four (Fernandez- Hermida et al. 2013; Kandel 1973; Lee et al. 2004; Wilson et al. 2010), five (Kristjansson et al. 2014), six (Grube et al. 1989), and seven (Galanti et al. 2007), to eight (Damrosch 1986; DiIorio et al. 2000). An SGIC can be used to link questionnaires, but cannot easily be associated with a specific respondent (Grube et al. 1989).

Codes of different lengths (numbers of characters) made up from different quantities of different elements (sources of information, e.g., first name) are used with varying success in matching participants. Stability, variability, and proximate relevance to the respondent are associated with lower error and omission rates, resulting in higher match rates (Yurek et al. 2008). Stability refers to the capacity of each element in the researcher-constructed question set to produce the same response every time it is answered. Variability refers to the capacity of the response options associated with each element in the question set to differ sufficiently among the respondents. Elements with proximate relevance to the respondent pertain to the self rather than others (Schnell et al. 2010; Yurek et al. 2008), e.g., the initials of the respondent’s own name are more proximal than the initials of his/her grandmother’s name. In addition to stability, variability, and proximate relevance, Schnell et al. (2010) introduced the number of elements (complexity of the SGIC) as another important characteristic that affects the matching rate. They identified an overall tendency which shows that a constant decline in the number of false positives matches increasing complexity of the code. We found only two studies that reported on linking the SGICs of two study groups, but neither of these studies assessed the results of the linking procedure in experimental prevention studies. Kandel (1973) used eight-character SGIC based on the middle letters of first and last names, the date of birth, and the last two characters of telephone numbers to match adolescents’ questionnaires with those of their parents and/or best friends into dyads or triads. She was able to match 73.6% of all possible dyads, while 6% of the adolescents and 2% of the parents were not Bwilling or able to construct the code^ (Kandel 1973, p. 1070). FernandezHermida et al. (2013) used a ten-character SGIC in child and parent surveys that was made up of the first three letters of the mother’s name, the day of the month of the child’s date of birth (number), the first three letters of his/her name, and the number of the month of birth. The rate of all possible dyads matched was 69.95%. In a few cases (about 3%), Bthe code was wrong and matching was not feasible^ (FernandezHermida et al. 2013, p. 160). From a comparison of these two studies, it seems that matching was less successful with more characters, but the difference was rather small. This may seem to be contrary to the findings of Schnell et al. (2010) that the complexity of the SGIC increases the matching rate, but Fernandez-Hermida et al. (2013) used the same number of elements (four) to generate an SGIC as Kandel .

A Successful Strategy for Linking Anonymous Data from Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and Parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;...

4 HEADLINE 2 IN TWO LINES WITH LOREM IPSUM ANNOUNCIA QUE 4.1 Headline 3 in one line Bus que autem ad quae. Ilit, velecabor ma vent hillab iducid eum volo moluptatat iurur, omnimo et vent es at quae corupta tquibus dolorias dolor soluptaspiti corehentem vendes restotate ped quo voluptatur? Ehendam ipidunt, tem verum escimusandel ipic tem volorru ptatiat ibusandictem ra quatiume volupta tquistrum et ipit, coriberia nobis essitati nectus ut voles aut as ex elluptat. Fuga. Id modi rerfero es esto voluptat quam faceatianda numquis ad quunt estibus. Udae quide eumquam, quia enis voluptate volupta temodit, sectur? Atiuribus molendebitia voluptiume lit acid qui tem facerna mentium iducil invenihit laborate cones de plabo. Giasint, quamusanti odi aborrum reperciis asimin consequiae quame nis ut dolupta soluptate corit, sam harum inuscius, num qui ressi corion postint audit esseditatis alit odicide mpores experfe riaecest qui dem aut faceriat iumet aliscip sanduciis volorep elique nonsed ea soluptam, ut molo odi con cum non resto mos andandanda ne cus aliquis as ut am quam ius assedi rae moluptat ide pratem iusae cus mi, serspedis sitaquate velestrum re quam, et qui te seque arciati oresequaturi dignihitatum et experov.

4.2 Headline 3 in two lines with lorem ipsum announcia que Oria consedis peliquasped quis a nonsedit, id quae. Urecatur, seque ped experis es dolor sum que evelitiur aut etum quae rero bearum idebitis con nest ut que pro od que vidipsus restio. Et latquia vendae conseque conseceaquod molut quam si quo incto blacepelenda pere pa quis dus debisim agnienitium fugiam, corenda dolore nonet, ne essitatur? Qui corume consequi cuptatur, od quid moluptatio qui vitior andipsam nis et volorei ureruptisto es et harumentiis seditio rporeiciat. Empeliti tenda vendam qui del idunt quodit in conetur, sam ipicia dicimpos se nonsed ute corro eruntium rem natiassed magnatquis aut qui cus aut ommodit que sequos maximustiis ratus diorumet ullam, officatquam fugit ut por aut quam que sus sunt. Nus erruntur sin nos aut et prae ipsandi nihita eritium, ut vollab idebitis commoluptae ipic te velibusandi voluptur, ipienis nus, naturep tatius, sequam voluptae del ipis dolore quatum voluptatet ma ea quam qui que cuptat et, nobis ne pa pa dolecae di optatibus. Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur? Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi

ADIKTOLOGIE

to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur? Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur? Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur. 4.2.1 Headline 4 in two lines with lorem ipsum announcia que Nus erruntur sin nos aut et prae Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur, sit ut odis etureriamus eum aliti occabor itemporporem quis atur sition pore core sit, serum nemossintur, te voluptis doluptibus. Et aut faccabores non coreriorem lam exerum alit alit unt, nonsequi que inverit aut odi int pro tem culparum debis rese con con comnimo vellaut quatium quodic tem des essimaio voloreh eniminc tistium con eossimus, od quatemp erferuptatem voluptur auta naturitem. Aliquiatur renias coreptur?1 Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt, tem laborro vitatis dollor siminusdae. Et quaerna tempor Ictias qui restotatiis et a volorest laut rest elessum solor sinvellores esequis rem ea cuptation nihillest, cuptam eatur. Et hicabori utatemod quissit lam volupturessi to bersperi dignationem ipsamus, odi odisqui atemquia net voluptatume nullupta consed moluptatque latquunt.Participation in prevention studies often requires respondents to answer 1 | Moluptaquis moditatius, soluptus.Orepediscium quaeprestia Met aut et, consequi consenduntis as dolorem es dolor solorecum reste es aut que si blaccum estis etus mo et eostio blanimi, quatquis assit, officia nonsequ atiossimus, alitae verore ipiet providus adit volorepe simus mod quundae

ADIKTOLOGIE

sensitive questions about their risk behavior, such as sexual experiences or substance use. Maintaining anonymity appears necessary not only to obtain valid answers (Gfroerer and Kennet 2014) but also to protect the participants and their environment (family, school, etc.)—as generally required by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).

5 HEADLINE 2 IN ONE LINE A self-generated identification code (SGIC) is an anonymous identifier generated from information available to the participant but not to the researcher on the basis of identical instructions for all participants. Confidentiality (a limited number of individuals collecting or analyzing data can link the responses with individual study subjects) is grounded in the researcher’s moral claim to trustworthiness, while anonymity (the collection of no identifying information on individual subjects) is a functional attribute of the research design (Bjarnason and Adalbjarnardottir 2000). With an SGIC, researchers do not collect any information that could identify the participants, e.g., their names, addresses, or dates of birth. The advantage of using SGICs is that it helps overcome the complexity and administrative burden of linking sensitive individual-level data over multiple time points (within-group SGICs) without the need to acquire direct personal details and informed consent that may compromise the anonymity of potential respondents or their willingness to participate (Kristjansson et al. 2014). In addition to longitudinal research, the advantages of SGICs can be utilized in research designs with different study groups (between-group SGICs, e.g., children and their parents) where individuals need to be paired across the groups while preserving respondent anonymity.

5.1 Headline 3 in two lines with lorem ipsum announcia que The SGIC usually consists of a combination of specific characters (letters and digits) derived from elements (sources of information, e.g., first, middle, or last names, names of pets, favorite clubs or mascots, or date of birth). One element can provide one or more characters for an SGIC. The number of elements used for generating an SGIC varies from three (McAlister and Gordon 1986), through four (Fernandez- Hermida et al. 2013; Kandel 1973; Lee et al. 2004; Wilson et al. 2010), five (Kristjansson et al. 2014), six (Grube et al. 1989), and seven (Galanti et al. 2007), to eight (Damrosch 1986; DiIorio et al. 2000). An SGIC can be used to link questionnaires, but cannot easily be associated with a specific respondent (Grube et al. 1989). Codes of different lengths (numbers of characters) made up from different quantities of different elements (sources of information, e.g., first name) are used with varying success in matching participants. Stability, variability, and proximate relevance to the respondent are associated with lower error and omission rates, resulting in higher match rates (Yurek et al. 2008). Stability refers to the capacity of each element

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

in the researcher-constructed question set to produce the same response every time it is answered. Variability refers to the capacity of the response options associated with each element in the question set to differ sufficiently among the respondents. Elements with proximate relevance to the respondent pertain to the self rather than others (Schnell et al. 2010; Yurek et al. 2008), e.g., the initials of the respondent’s own name are more proximal than the initials of his/her grandmother’s name. In addition to stability, variability, and proximate relevance, Schnell et al. (2010) introduced the number of elements (complexity of the SGIC) as another important characteristic that affects the matching rate. They identified an overall tendency which shows that a constant decline in the number of false positives matches increasing complexity of the code. We found only two studies that reported on linking the SGICs of two study groups, but neither of these studies assessed the results of the linking procedure in experimental prevention studies. Kandel (1973) used eight-character SGIC based on the middle letters of first and last names, the date of birth, and the last two characters of telephone numbers to match adolescents’ questionnaires with those of their parents and/or best friends into dyads or triads. She was able to match 73.6% of all possible dyads, while 6% of the adolescents and 2% of the parents were not Bwilling or able to construct the code^ (Kandel 1973, p. 1070). FernandezHermida et al. (2013) used a ten-character SGIC in child and parent surveys that was made up of the first three letters of the mother’s name, the day of the month of the child’s date of birth (number), the first three letters of his/her name, and the number of the month of birth. The rate of all possible dyads matched was 69.95%. In a few cases (about 3%), Bthe code was wrong and matching was not feasible^ (FernandezHermida et al. 2013, p. 160).2 From a comparison of these two studies, it seems that matching was less successful with more characters, but the difference was rather small. This may seem to be contrary to the findings of Schnell et al. (2010) that the complexity of the SGIC increases the matching rate, but Fernandez-Hermida et al. (2013) used the same number of elements (four) to generate an SGIC as Kandel (1973), and their success rate of matching was about the same (70 vs 74%).

2 | Moluptaquis moditatius, soluptus.Orepediscium quaeprestia

ADIKTOLOGIE

A Successful Strategy for Linking Anonymous Data from Students’ and Parents’...

REFERENCES • Bjarnason, T., & Adalbjarnardottir, S. (2000). Anonymity and confidentiality in school surveys on alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use. Journal of Drug Issues, 30, 335–343.

• Christen, P. (2012). Data matching: Concepts and techniques for record linkage, entity resolution, and duplicate detection. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

• Bjarnason, T., & Adalbjarnardottir, S. (2000). Anonymity and confidentiality in school surveys on alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use. Journal of Drug Issues, 30, 335–343.