Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 17, No. 1, 2011
Issue release date: December 2010
Eur Addict Res 2011;17:37–43

Agreement between Maternal Cannabis Use during Pregnancy according to Self-Report and Urinalysis in a Population-Based Cohort: The Generation R Study

El Marroun H. · Tiemeier H. · Jaddoe V.W.V. · Hofman A. · Verhulst F.C. · van den Brink W. · Huizink A.C.
aThe Generation R Study Group, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, bDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Erasmus Medical Centre, Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, cDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, dDepartment of Paediatrics, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, eAcademic Medical Centre University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, fAmsterdam Institute for Addiction Research, Amsterdam, and gDepartment of Education, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Aim: To verify self-reported information on prenatal drug use in urine because reporting in pregnancy is sensitive to stigma and might lead to misclassification. Methods: Using semiquantitative immunochemical analysis, the presence of the urinary metabolite (11-nor-Δ9–tetrahydrocannabinol- 9-carboxylic acid) was compared to self-reported prenatal cannabis use. Sensitivity and specificity for self-report and urinalysis outcomes were calculated and Yule’s Y was used as an agreement measure. Results: Urine samples were available for 3,997 pregnant women. Of these women, 92 reported having used cannabis during pregnancy (2.3%) and 71 had positive urine screens (1.8%). In total 35% of the 92 women with self-reported cannabis use also had a positive urine screen. Positive urines were relatively frequent in women reporting cannabis use before pregnancy only (7.6%) and in women with missing information (2.6%). Sensitivity and specificity of urinalysis compared to self-report were 0.46 and 0.98. Sensitivity and specificity of self-report compared to urinalysis were 0.36 and 0.99. Yule’s Y amounted to 0.77, indicating substantial agreement between the measures. Conclusions: Our findings illustrate the difficulties in obtaining valid information on prenatal cannabis use. To improve the quality of cannabis use data, we suggest a 2-step approach starting with self-report.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. European Monitoring Centre of Drugs and Drug Addiction: Annual Report 2006: The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe. Lisbon, EMCDDA, 2006.
  2. Turner C, Russell A, Brown W: Prevalence of illicit drug use in young Australian women, patterns of use and associated risk factors. Addiction 2003;98:1419–1426.
  3. Leatherdale ST, Hammond DG, Kaiserman M, Ahmed R: Marijuana and tobacco use among young adults in Canada: are they smoking what we think they are smoking? Cancer Causes Control 2007;18:391–397.
  4. El Marroun H, Tiemeier H, Jaddoe VW, Hofman A, Mackenbach JP, Steegers EA, Verhulst FC, van den Brink W, Huizink AC: Demographic, emotional and social determinants of cannabis use in early pregnancy: the Generation R study. Drug Alcohol Depend 2008;98:218–226.
  5. Ebrahim SH, Gfroerer J: Pregnancy-related substance use in the United States during 1996–1998. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:374–379.
  6. Buchan BJ, M LD, Tims FM, Diamond GS: Cannabis use: consistency and validity of self-report, on-site urine testing and laboratory testing. Addiction 2002;97(suppl 1):98–108.
  7. Shiono PH, Klebanoff MA, Nugent RP, Cotch MF, Wilkins DG, Rollins DE, Carey JC, Behrman RE: The impact of cocaine and marijuana use on low birth weight and preterm birth: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:19–27.
  8. Markovic N, Ness RB, Cefilli D, Grisso JA, Stahmer S, Shaw LM: Substance use measures among women in early pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:627–632.
  9. El Marroun H, Tiemeier H, Steegers EA, Jaddoe VW, Hofman A, Verhulst FC, van den Brink W, Huizink AC: Intrauterine cannabis exposure affects fetal growth trajectories: the Generation R study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2009, E-pub ahead of print.
  10. Jacobson SW, Jacobson JL, Sokol RJ, Martier SS, Ager JW, Kaplan MG: Maternal recall of alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana use during pregnancy. Neurotoxicol Teratol 1991; 13:535–540.
  11. Cary PL: The marijuana detection window: determining the length of time cannabinoids will remain detectable in urine following smoking: a critical review of relevant research and cannabinoid detection guidance for drug courts. Drug Court Rev 2005;5:23–58.
  12. Huestis MA, Cone EJ: Urinary excretion half-life of 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans. Ther Drug Monit 1998;20:570–576.
  13. Kelly P, Jones RT: Metabolism of tetrahydrocannabinol in frequent and infrequent marijuana users. J Anal Toxicol 1992;16:228–235.
  14. Fraser AD, Worth D: Urinary excretion profiles of 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol: a delta9-thc-cooh to creatinine ratio study #2. Forensic Sci Int 2003;133:26–31.
  15. Johansson E, Halldin MM: Urinary excretion half-life of delta 1-tetrahydrocannabinol-7-oic acid in heavy marijuana users after smoking. J Anal Toxicol 1989;13:218–223.
  16. van den Brink W: Forum: decriminalization of cannabis. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2008;21:122–126.
  17. Jaddoe VW, Bakker R, van Duijn CM, van der Heijden AJ, Lindemans J, Mackenbach JP, Moll HA, Steegers EA, Tiemeier H, Uitterlinden AG, Verhulst FC, Hofman A: The Generation R Study Biobank: a resource for epidemiological studies in children and their parents. Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22:917–923.
  18. Rodenburg G, Spijkerman R, Van den Eijnden R, Van de Mheen, D: Nationaal Prevalentie Onderzoek naar Middelengebruik 2005. Rotterdam, IVO, 2007.
  19. Cook JD, Caplan YH, LoDico CP, Bush DM: The characterization of human urine for specimen validity determination in workplace drug testing: a review. J Anal Toxicol 2000;24:579–588.
  20. Heit HA, Gourlay DL: Urine drug testing in pain medicine. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004;27:260–267.
  21. Statistics Netherlands: Migrants in the Netherlands 2004 (Allochtonen in Nederland 2004), Voorburg/Heerlen, 2004. http:
  22. Statistics Netherlands: Standard Classification of Education 2003 (Standaard Onderwijsindeling 2003). Voorburg/Heerlen, 2004,
  23. Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N: The brief symptom inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med 1983;13:595–605.
  24. Walter SD: Hoehler’s adjusted kappa is equivalent to Yule’s Y. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:1072–1073.
  25. Ness RB, Grisso JA, Hirschinger N, Markovic N, Shaw LM, Day NL, Kline J: Cocaine and tobacco use and the risk of spontaneous abortion. N Engl J Med 1999;340:333–339.
  26. Perrone J, De Roos F, Jayaraman S, Hollander JE: Drug screening versus history in detection of substance use in ED psychiatric patients. Am J Emerg Med 2001;19:49–51.
  27. Rouen D, Dolan K, Kimber J: A review of drug detection testing and an examination of urine, hair, saliva and sweat. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Technical Report No. 120. Sydney, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 2001.
  28. Musshoff F, Madea B: Review of biologic matrices (urine, blood, hair) as indicators of recent or ongoing cannabis use. Ther Drug Monit 2006;28:155–163.
  29. Dugan S, Bogema S, Schwartz RW, Lappas NT: Stability of drugs of abuse in urine samples stored at –20 degrees C. J Anal Toxicol 1994;18:391–396.
  30. Moody DE, Monti KM, Spanbauer AC: Long-term stability of abused drugs and antiabuse chemotherapeutical agents stored at –20 degrees C. J Anal Toxicol 1999;23:535–540.
  31. Wennig R: Potential problems with the interpretation of hair analysis results. Forensic Sci Int 2000;107:5–12.
  32. Gray TR, LaGasse LL, Smith LM, Derauf C, Grant P, Shah R, Arria AM, Della Grotta SA, Strauss A, Haning WF, Lester BM, Huestis MA: Identification of prenatal amphetamines exposure by maternal interview and meconium toxicology in the Infant Development, Environment and Lifestyle (IDEAL) study. Ther Drug Monit 2009;31:769–775.
  33. Jaddoe VW, Mackenbach JP, Moll HA, Steegers EA, Tiemeier H, Verhulst FC, Witteman JC, Hofman A: The Generation R study: design and cohort profile. Eur J Epidemiol 2006;21:475–484.
  34. Central Bureau of Research and Statistics Rotterdam: Social structure Rotterdam (in Dutch). Rotterdam, Central Bureau of Research and Statistics Rotterdam (COS), 2003.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50