The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): A review of graded severity algorithms and national adaptations

Abstract

Aims: Since it was first released in 1989, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) has generated a large amount of research to evaluate its psychometric properties. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the literature relevant to applications of the AUDIT in screening, brief intervention, and treatment referral programs, and identify national adaptations of the AUDIT to country-specific health, education, and reimbursement needs. Methods:Methods comprised a search of the world literature published since 2004, combined with review articles published since 1997. Findings:We identified 431 studies of the AUDIT, including 386 articles, 26 review papers, and 11 book chapters since 2004, with a six-fold increase in the last decade. The factor structure of the AUDIT items remains unclear, but the weight of evidence supports a two-factor model. Despite the translation of the AUDIT into numerous languages, the alcohol consumption questions were rarely adapted to suit cultural or national conditions. Although numerous studies have supported the recommended cutoff thresholds for a possible alcohol use disorder, only three studies evaluated the classification accuracy of the AUDIT's graded severity system. Conclusions:Further development of the AUDIT score's severity zones is needed to guide intervention selection in clinical settings.

<b>Prevalence of self-reported <i>diabetes</i> and hypertension among users of primary health care services

“…Education level was ranked into five groups: insufficient school (including illiterates, people who never attended school or people who did not complete elementary school I), elementary school II (incomplete or complete), intermediate school (incomplete or complete), and higher education (incomplete or complete). The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) was used to rank the pattern of alcohol use into four risk zones: (I) non-drinker, (II) non-hazardous, (III) hazardous and (IV) harmful drinking (Babor & Robaina, 2016).…”

Acute Alcohol Effects on Response Inhibition Depend on Response Automatization, but not on GABA or Glutamate Levels in the ACC and Striatum

“…Lastly, all participants needed to report a stable pattern of moderate, non-risky alcohol consumption habits. This was defined as Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores between 1 and 15 points [50], and reporting to binge drink (i.e., consume eight or more standard units of alcohol on a single occasion/ evening) no more than once a month and no less than once a year. Women were not permitted to participate in the study due to the potential risk of undetected pregnancy.…”

Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment: implications of SAMHSA's SBIRT initiative for substance abuse policy and practice

“…In 1982, the World Health Organization (WHO) began to develop an international screening test for hazardous and harmful drinkers, and to evaluate how these patients could be managed in primary health-care settings [6]. That project produced the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), which has become the most widely used alcohol screening test in the world, in part because of an impressive science base that now includes more than 350 scientific papers [7]. The validation work for the AUDIT was followed by a 10-nation study to test the effectiveness of brief intervention (BI) [8], which showed that clinically meaningful changes in patients' drinking behavior could be produced with a small investment of time and clinical resources.…”