Are short AUDIT screeners effective in identifying unhealthy drinking of varying severity? A prison population study

Prevalence and characteristics of hazardous and harmful drinkers receiving general practitioners’ brief advice on and support with alcohol consumption in Germany: results of a population survey

“…The higher the overall AUDIT-C score, the higher the rate of reporting ever receipt of GP advice on, or support with, reducing alcohol consumption (see figure 2 ). In persons with an AUDIT-C score >9—which is viewed as harmful or potentially dependent drinking pattern 31 —51.5% (n=17/33) have ever received GP advice on, or support with reducing alcohol consumption.…”

“…29 The variable was categorised into three levels: low (<20th income percentile), medium (20th-80th income percentiles) and high (>80th income percentile), approximately reflecting the distribution of income in the German population. [30][31][32] Respondents who did not remember whether or not they received GP advice seem to be more often current smokers and lower educated but did not systematically differ from respondents who did remember (online supplemental table 1).…”

“…‡Gender-specific mean values (including median and SD) for the sample are reported in the results section of this manuscript.§Entered as continuous variable in regression analysis.¶German educational qualification levels: low (9 years of education, or no graduation), medium (10 years of education), high (≥12 years of education).††Monthly net household income per person in the household, based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-modified equivalence scale 29. The variable was categorised into three levels: low (<20th income percentile), medium (20th–80th income percentiles) and high (>80th income percentile), approximately reflecting the distribution of income in the German population 30–32…”

“…Data were aggregated from seven survey waves (waves [28][29][30][31][32][33][34] collected between February 2021 and February 2022 (N=14 327). Since January 2020, respondents are selected by using a dual frame design: a composition of random stratified sampling (50% of the sample) and quota sampling (50% of the sample).…”

“…Missing data were sparse (<0.6% for all variables except for income (2.9%) and migration background (4.8%)), and data were analysed using complete cases. Due to an incorrect questionnaire instruction in four survey waves (28)(29)(30)(31), 22.6% of respondents who reported to the first AUDIT-C question with 'at least once a month or less' did not receive the AUDIT-C questions 2 and 3, and were not interviewed on the primary outcome. However, an analysis of AUDIT-C data from earlier waves of the DEBRA study 5 with the correct questionnaire instruction showed that only 1% of respondents who provided the same answer, were identified as hazardous or harmful drinkers.…”