Several methodological differences between the 2001–2002 NESARC and the 2012–2013 NESARC-III may have contributed to higher prevalence estimates for the latter survey, possibly resulting in NESARC trend estimates that were much higher than those for other surveys. These include the use of private-sector interviewers for NESARC-III in contrast to interviewers from the US Census for the 2001/2 survey, the introduction of biological sample collection for NESARC-III, changes in survey content, and the use of incentives for the latter survey (Grant et al., 2014, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2017, Lopez, 2017, Grucza et al., 2016). These factors may explain why the NESARC estimates suggested larger increases for both outcomes and for every demographic subgroup than any of the other surveys analyzed. In contrast, NSDUH estimates were closest to the meta-analytic estimates for both outcomes and for the majority of demographic subgroup analyses. The NSDUH conducts in-person interviews with audio-computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI), which is less sensitive to social desirability bias. NSDUH survey content and methodology were fairly consistent over the 2002–2016 period, which was the period we included here.
