Screening with the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) in an inner-city population

Isaacson, J. Harry; Butler, R N; Zacharke, Mark; Tzelepis, Angela

doi:10.1007/bf02599279

Cited by 107 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, the AUDIT (Ն8) had a lower sensitivity for active DSM-III-R alcohol abuse or dependence in our population (66%; 95% CI 54%, 78%) than in a study in which the AUDIT was interviewer-administered (96%). 36 Previous studies comparing self-administered CAGE and AUDIT questionnaires with self-administered comparison standards have reported lower sensitivities, closer to ours: 39% for the CAGE (Ն2) screening for lifetime alcohol abuse or dependence 3 ; and 61% for the AU-DIT (Ն8) screening for current alcohol abuse or dependence. 40 No previous primary care study has compared a selfadministered CAGE, AUDIT, or augmented CAGE questionnaire with an interview comparison standard for heavy drinking.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Most previous studies of the AUDIT and CAGE have evaluated these instruments as intervieweradministered questionnaires. 1,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]30,36 Three studies of interviewer-administered CAGE questionnaires in elderly VA populations similar to ours found the sensitivity of the CAGE (Ն2) for DSM-III-R lifetime alcohol abuse or depen- dence to be 78% to 82%. [10][11][12] Our sensitivity for the selfadministered CAGE (Ն2) compared with the same comparison standard was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI] 44%, 61%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Screening for problem drinking

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:To compare self-administered versions of three questionnaires for detecting heavy and problem drinking: the CAGE, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and an augmented version of the CAGE. DESIGN:Cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Three Department of Veterans Affairs general medical clinics.PATIENTS: Random sample of consenting male outpatients who consumed at least 5 drinks over the past year ("drinkers"). Heavy drinkers were oversampled. MEASUREMENTS:An augmented version of the CAGE was included in a questionnaire mailed to all patients. The AUDIT was subsequently mailed to "drinkers." Comparison standards, based on the tri-level World Health Organization alcohol consumption interview and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, included heavy drinking ( Ͼ 14 drinks per week typically or Ն 5 drinks per day at least monthly) and active DSM-IIIR alcohol abuse or dependence (positive diagnosis and at least one alcohol-related symptom in the past year). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were used to compare screening questionnaires. MAIN RESULTS:Of 393 eligible patients, 261 (66%) returned the AUDIT and completed interviews. For detection of active alcohol abuse or dependence, the CAGE augmented with three more questions (AUROC 0.871) performed better than either the CAGE alone or AUDIT (AUROCs 0.820 and 0.777, respectively). For identification of heavy-drinking patients, however, the AUDIT performed best (AUROC 0.870). To identify both heavy drinking and active alcohol abuse or dependence, the augmented CAGE and AUDIT both performed well, but the AUDIT was superior (AUROC 0.861). CONCLUSIONS:For identification of patients with heavy drinking or active alcohol abuse or dependence, the self-administered AUDIT was superior to the CAGE in this population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Screening for problem drinking

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vários estudos nesse sentido são encontrados na literatura (12,16,18,20,(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35) (1) .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…O AUDIT, quando comparado a outros 22 instrumentos, é aquele que apresenta as características psicométricas mais sofisticadas com fidedignidade e validade estimadas em várias populações de diversos países (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23) .…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Confiabilidade do teste de identificação de transtornos devido ao uso de álcool (AUDIT) em adolescentes

Mattara

Ângelo

Faria

et al. 2010

SMAD, Rev. Eletrônica Saúde Mental Álcool Drog. (Ed. port.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O objetivo deste trabalho foi estimar a confiabilidade do teste de identificação de transtornos devido ao uso de álcool (AUDIT), aplicado em adolescentes. Foram avaliados 141 estudantes com idade de 14 a 17 anos (14,93±0,62). A consistência interna do instrumento foi estimada pelo coeficiente alfa de Cronbach e sua reprodutibilidade pela estatística Kappa ponderada por ponto e por intervalo de 95% de confiança. O AUDIT apresentou excelente consistência interna (α=0,80, r inter-item =0,29). A maioria das questões apresenta reprodutibilidade classificada como "boa". Pode-se concluir que o AUDIT revelou-se instrumento confiável para o levantamento de informações sobre o consumo de álcool em adolescentes. Descritores: Alcoolismo; Adolescente; Reprodutividade dos Testes. RELIABILITY OF THE ALCOHOL USE DISORDERS IDENTIFICATION TEST (AUDIT) IN ADOLESCENTSThe objective of this study was to estimate the reliability of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) applied to adolescents. Evaluations were performed with 141 students of ages ranging from 14 to 17 years (14.93±0.62). The internal consistency of the instrument was estimated by Cronbach's alpha coefficient and its reproducibility by weighted Kappa statistics by score and by a reliability interval of 95%. The AUDIT presented excellent internal consistency (α=0.80, r inter-item =0.29). Most questions present reproducibility ranked as "good". It is concluded that the AUDIT is a reliable instrument to survey information about alcohol use in adolescents. Descriptors: Alcoholism; Adolescente; Reproducibility of Results.

show abstract

“…23,24 The AUDIT identifies a current, alcoholrelated problem in patients who score 8 or more of a possible 40 points with a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 96%. 25 We measured alcohol consumption by self-report asking separate questions for quantity and frequency in the consumption of beer, wine, and spirits. This method of reporting alcohol consumption possesses good agreement with other methods such as drinking diaries and allows for direct conversion to standard drinks (1.5 oz of spirits, 12 oz of beer, or 5 oz of wine).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for problem drinking

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of a screen for problem drinking on medical residents and their patients. DESIGN:Descriptive cohort study. SETTING: Veterans Affairs Medical Clinic.PATIENTS: Patients were screened 2 weeks before a scheduled visit ( n ‫؍‬ 714). Physicians were informed if their patients scored positive. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Physician discussion of alcohol use was documented through patient interview and chart review. Self-reported alcohol consumption was recorded. Of 236 current drinkers, 28% were positive for problem drinking by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Of 58 positive patients contacted at 1 month, 78% recalled a discussion about alcohol use, 58% were advised to decrease drinking, and 9% were referred for treatment. In 57 positive patient charts, alcohol use was noted in 33 (58%), and a recommendation in 14 (25%). Newly identified patients had fewer notations than patients with prior alcohol problems. Overall, 6-month alcohol consumption decreased in both AUDIT-positive and AUDIT-negative patients. The proportion of positive patients who consumed more than 16 drinks per week (problem drinking) decreased from 58% to 49%. Problem drinking at 6 months was independent of physician discussion or chart notation. CONCLUSIONS:Resident physicians discussed alcohol use in a majority of patients who screened positive for alcohol problems but less often offered specific advice or treatment. Furthermore, residents were less likely to note concerns about alcohol use in charts of patients newly identified. Finally, a screen for alcohol abuse may influence patient consumption.KEY WORDS: alcohol abuse; problem drinking; screening; brief interventions. J GEN INTERN MED 1998;13:251-256.

show abstract

Screening with the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) in an inner-city population

Cited by 107 publications

References 11 publications

Screening for problem drinking

Screening for problem drinking

Confiabilidade do teste de identificação de transtornos devido ao uso de álcool (AUDIT) em adolescentes

Screening for problem drinking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About