An examination of the utility of the AUDIT in people with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE: To examine the reliability and validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) compared to a structured diagnostic interview, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI; 12-month version) in psychiatric patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. METHOD: Patients (N = 71, 53 men) were interviewed using the CIDI (Alcohol Misuse Section; 12-month version) and then completed the AUDIT. RESULTS: The CIDI identified 32.4% of the sample as having an alcohol use disorder. Of these, 5 (7.0%) met diagnostic criteria for harmful use of alcohol, 1 (1.4%) met diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse and 17 (23.9%) met diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence. The AUDIT was found to have good internal reliability (coefficient = 0.85). An AUDIT cutoff of > or = 8 had a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 90% in detecting CIDI-diagnosed alcohol disorders. All items except Item 9 contributed significantly to discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings replicate and extend previous findings of high rates of alcohol use disorders in people with severe mental illness. The AUDIT was found to be reliable and valid in this sample and can be used with confidence as a screening instrument for alcohol use disorders in people with schizophrenia.     

Beyond alcoholism: identifying older,at-risk drinkers in primary care

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of two self-report instruments: the Alcohol-Related Problems Survey (ARPS) and its shorter version the Short ARPS (shARPS) that identify older persons whose use of alcohol alone or with their comorbidities may be placing them at risk for or causing them harm. METHOD: We compared the two measures against a "LEAD" (longitudinal evaluation done by experts employing all available data) standard among a sample of 166 drinkers aged 60 years and older in 10 internal medicine clinics. The LEAD standard included a medical record review, a clinical interview and a telephone interview with a collateral informant. We tabulated reasons the LEAD identified subjects as harmful or hazardous drinkers. We also compared the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test-Geriatric Version (SMAST-G) to the LEAD. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of the ARPS and the shARPS as compared to the LEAD were 93% and 63%, and 92% and 51%, respectively. After minor changes were made in the scoring rules, specificity increased to 66% for both the ARPS and shARPS while sensitivity remained stable, 93% and 91%. Harmful and hazardous drinkers were most often identified because of alcohol use with comorbidities, symptoms, and medication use. Sensitivity and specificity of the AUDIT and the SMAST-G as compared to the LEAD were 28% and 100%, and 52% and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ARPS and shARPS are quite sensitive in identifying older drinkers with a spectrum of alcohol use disorders. They are more sensitive than the AUDIT and the SMAST-G in identifying older persons who may be at risk or experiencing harm as a result of their alcohol use and comorbidities. They also provide information on specific risks associated with alcohol use not obtained by other screening measures and may therefore facilitate interventions by busy clinicians to reduce such risks.     

AUDIT-C, AUDIT-3 and AUDIT-QF in screening risky drinking among Finnish occupational health-care patients

Introduction and Aims. Primary care physicians need a brief screening instrument to detect risky drinkers. In previous studies, the three first questions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test‐C (AUDIT‐C) and the third question on heavy episodic drinking alone (AUDIT‐3) have been shown to be almost as effective as the whole AUDIT. Also, AUDIT‐QF (the first two questions of AUDIT) can be a potential screening instrument. However, the validity of these short questionnaires has not been studied among the occupational health‐care patients. Design and Methods. Patients visiting their doctor in six occupational health clinics were asked to fill in a health questionnaire containing AUDIT. All together 759 patients participated in the study. Risky drinking was defined as having scored of≥10 for men or≥8 or more for women in the AUDIT questionnaire. Validity of AUDIT‐C, AUDIT‐3 and AUDIT‐QF were compared against the whole AUDIT. Results. Based on the whole AUDIT, 92 (24%) of the men and 33 (9%) of the women were risky drinkers. For men and women, area under the curve was relatively high for all tested questionnaires. For AUDIT‐C, the best combination of sensitivity and specificity was yielded at cut‐off point of 6 for men and 4 for women. Discussion and Conclusion. Short questionnaires perform almost as well as the whole AUDIT screening risky drinking among men and women. This is why they can be recommended for clinical use in busy settings. The cut‐off points, however, have to be tailored for gender and culture.[Kaarne T, Aalto M, Kuokkanen M, Seppä K. AUDIT‐C, AUDIT‐3 and AUDIT‐QF in screening risky drinking among Finnish occupational health‐care patients. Drug Alcohol Rev 2010]     

Alcohol abuse and dependence in an urban primary care clinic in Nigeria.

A two-stage epidemiological survey was conducted in an urban walk-in clinic in Nigeria to detect, among other disorders, the prevalence of alcohol abuse and dependence using DMS-IIIR criteria. At the first stage, respondents were administered the 12-item General Health Questionnaire and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). A proportion of the respondents were selected for detailed interview at the second stage using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). An estimated 1.7% of this sample met the criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence. All the identified cases were males, thus giving an estimated prevalence of 5.2% in males. In this setting, the AUDIT performed poorly as a screening instrument. It has a sensitivity of 32% but a specificity of 93%. Apart from reasons relating to the low base rates of the disorders under investigation, cultural factors influencing the ways alcohol use are perceived may explain this poor performance.     

Primary care validation of a single screening question for drinkers

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a primary care validation study of a single screening question for alcohol misuse ("When was the last time you had more than X drinks in 1 day?," where X was four for women and X was five for men), which was previously validated in a study conducted in emergency departments. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was accomplished by interviewing 625 male and female adult drinkers who presented to five southeastern primary care practices. Patients answered the single question (coded as within 3 months, within 12 months, ever, or never), Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and AUDIT consumption questions (AUDIT-C). Alcohol misuse was defined as either at-risk drinking, identified by a 29-day Timeline Followback interview or a current (past-year) alcohol-use disorder by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria, or both. RESULTS: Among 625 drinkers interviewed, 25.6% were at-risk drinkers, 21.7% had a current alcohol- use disorder, and 35.2% had either or both conditions. Considering "within the last 3 months" as positive, the sensitivity of the single question was 80% and the specificity was 74%. Chi-square analyses revealed similar sensitivity across ethnic and gender groups; however, specificity was higher in women and whites (p = .0187 and .0421, respectively). Considering "within the last 12 months" as positive increased the question's sensitivity, especially for those with alcohol-use disorders. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the single alcohol screening question (0.79) was slightly lower than for the AUDIT and AUDIT-C, but sensitivity and specificity were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A single question about the last episode of heavy drinking is a sensitive, time-efficient screening instrument that shows promise for increasing alcohol screening in primary care practices.     

The validity of an Australian modification of the AUDIT questionnaire

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) has been used widely and is reported to be superior to conventional questionnaires in detection of current hazardous and harmful alcohol use. We assessed the validity of an Australian modification of the AUDIT (the AusAUDIT), which has been employed widely in Australian and New Zealand early intervention programmes. We used a cross-sectional study of 370 subjects from the follow-up phase of a randomized controlled trial of early intervention to reduce hazardous alcohol consumption. Scores on the AusAUDIT were compared against 12-month ICD-10 diagnoses of harmful alcohol use and dependence, as determined by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, and against self-report of alcohol consumption exceeding Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) recommended limits. AusAUDIT had good internal consistency and discriminated significantly between persons meeting criteria for ICD-10 alcohol use disorders, and drinkers who did not. At currently recommended cut-off scores, AusAUDIT detected more than 85% of people meeting criteria for ICD-10 alcohol use disorders, or drinking over NH&MRC recommended limits, but its specificity was limited (29% in men, and 58% in women for drinking over NH&MRC limits). No subset of questions performed as well as the full AusAUDIT in detection of drinking problems, but the alcohol consumption items provided a reasonable screen for drinking over NH&MRC limits. We conclude that AusAUDIT is effective in detecting problematic drinking, but positive cases should be confirmed by clinical assessment. The findings illustrate the need for validation of questionnaire modifications, and the difficulty in increasing test sensitivity without reducing specificity. \[Degenhardt LJ, Conigrave KM, Wutzke SE, Saunders JB. The validity of an Australian modification of the AUDIT questionnaire. Drug Alcohol Rev 2001;20:143-154]     

Validation of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in urban community outreach and de-addiction center samples in north India

OBJECTIVE: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) developed by the World Health Organization for screening disorders related to alcohol use has been shown to have robust psychometric properties. This study compared the performance of AUDIT with that of the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST) in a region of North India. METHOD: A total of 297 consecutive subjects who had used alcohol in the past year were recruited from a de-addiction center (DAC) (n = 97) and a community outreach setting (n = 200) in West Delhi. Using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) criteria, the relative effectiveness of the AUDIT and the SMAST in identifying alcohol-use-related disorders was assessed and compared. Internal consistency and interscale correlations were evaluated, along with sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve analyses. RESULTS: The AUDIT had very high internal reliability (alpha 0.92) in this Indian sample. There was, in general, good correlation between the total and factor scores of the AUDIT and SMAST (ranging from 0.28 to 0.97), which were higher in the community than in the DAC sample. The AUDIT (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.883) and SMAST (AUC = 0.870) were similar in detecting harmful use of alcohol. The AUDIT optimal cutoff score was 16 (sensitivity 85.3, specificity 89.4) for ICD-10 harmful use and 24 (sensitivity 69.4, specificity 87.5) for ICD-10 alcohol dependence. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT and SMAST seem to be comparable in their ability to screen subjects with alcohol use disorders. The AUDIT score for screening harmful use in the sample appears to be higher than previously reported. The utility of such high cutoff for screening subjects for intervention is obvious, but it is quite likely that some positive cases might be missed.     

Diagnostic usefulness of brief versions of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) for detecting hazardous drinkers in primary care settings

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic usefulness of the brief versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) for detecting hazardous drinkers and to compare it with that of the full-AUDIT in primary care settings. METHOD: Five hundred patients were randomly selected in a primary care center. An interview on quantity-frequency was administered for assessment of weekly alcohol intake. The standard used for classification of hazardous drinkers was a weekly alcohol consumption of 280 g for men and 168 g for women. Cut-off points were 8 for the full-AUDIT, 1 for the AUDIT-3 (third item), 3 for the AUDIT-C (items 1, 2 and 3), 5 for the AUDIT-PC (items 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10) and 3 for the modified Fast Alcohol Screening Test (m-FAST; items 3, 5, 8 and 10). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were measured. RESULTS: Diagnostic usefulness of the questionnaires for detecting hazardous drinkers was for the full-AUDIT: 81.4% sensitivity, 94.6% specificity and 0.97 AUROC curve; for the AUDIT-3: 83.1% sensitivity, 90.9% specificity and 0.89 AUROC curve; for the AUDIT-C: 100% sensitivity, 79.4% specificity and 0.97 AUROC curve; for the AUDIT-PC: 98.3% sensitivity 90.9% specificity and 0.97 AUROC curve; and for the m-FAST: 79.7% sensitivity, 93.7% specificity and 0.93 AUROC curve. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT-C and AUDIT-PC show a higher sensitivity, lower specificity and a similar AUROC curve than the full-AUDIT, thus allowing their use as screening instruments that are as reliable as the original test for detecting hazardous drinkers. The AUDIT-3 and m-FAST, when compared with the full-AUDIT, performed less well, therefore limiting their use for this purpose.     

A prototype screening instrument for cannabis use disorder: the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT) in an alcohol-dependent clinical sample

The Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT) was used for the first time as part of a randomized controlled trial for brief interventions in mild to moderate alcohol-dependent out-patients. This sample may be seen as a population at increased risk of cannabis use disorder. The CUDIT was developed by modifying the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). The ability of the CUDIT to accurately screen for cannabis abuse or dependence was examined in the portion of the sample who reported some cannabis use over the preceding 6 months (n =53), as was self-reported frequency of cannabis use in the preceding 6 months. The CUDIT was superior to the frequency measure, achieving positive predictive power of 84.6% and sensitivity of 73.3% at a cut-off of 8, compared to positive predictive power of 81.8% and sensitivity of 60.0% for 80 or more cannabis usedays. These results indicate the viability of a screening measure for identifying cannabis use disorder in at risk populations. [Adamson SJ, Sellman JD. A prototype screening instrument for cannabis use disorder: the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT) in an alcohol-dependent clinical sample. Drug Alcohol Rev 2003;22:309 - 315]     

Identifying young people who drink too much: the clinical utility of the five-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)

The current study investigated the patterns and consequences of alcohol use among young people and their perceptions of associate health risk, and explored the clinical utility of the five-itemversion of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in screening young people for hazardous drinking. A cross-sectional sample of 393 young people aged 16-19 years were accessed through two tertiary colleges in South London and self-completed an anonymous, confidential questionnaire recording the five-item AUDIT, patterns of alcohol consumption, hazardous consequences and perception of associate health risk. Over 90% of the sample reported drinking alcohol regularly, commonly excessive weekend use and related physical, psychological and social consequences. A significant minority (20.4% of males, 18.0% of females) reported consumption of alcohol in excess of UKrecommended limits, while almost a third (34.2%of males, 30.2%of females) reported scores in the 'hazardous' range of the five-item AUDIT. However, the majority had little perception of associate health risk, perceiving their use to be 'light' and unproblematic. Only one in 10 of those drinking at 'hazardous' levels recognized their alcohol use as problematic, most believing the hazardous consequences of this use were acceptable. Self-reported patterns of alcohol consumption (except age first used) and total number of psychological and social hazardous consequences were found to significantly predict AUDIT scores using linear regression analysis. Therefore the five-item AUDIT appears to have predictive validity, reflecting self-reported alcohol consumption, perception of associate health risk and hazardous consequences among young people. It is concluded that it may consequently have clinical utility as a simple screening tool (suitable for use by a variety of professionals in contact with young people) for the identification of hazardous alcohol consumption among this population. \[Miles H, Winstock A, Strang J. Identifying young people who drink too much: the clinical utility of the five-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Drug Alcohol Rev 2001:20:9-18]     

The reliability and validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a German general practice population sample

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to analyze the retest reliability and validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a primary-care setting and recommend a cut-off value for the different alcohol-related diagnoses. METHOD: Participants recruited from general practices (GPs) in two northern German cities received the AUDIT, which was embedded in a health-risk questionnaire. In total, 10,803 screenings were conducted. The retest reliability was tested on a subsample of 99 patients, with an intertest interval of 30 days. Sensitivity and specificity at a number of different cut-off values were estimated for the sample of alcohol consumers (n=8237). For this study, 1109 screen-positive patients received a diagnostic interview. Individuals who scored less than five points in the AUDIT and also tested negative in a second alcohol-related screen were defined as "negative" (n=6003). This definition was supported by diagnostic interviews of 99 screen-negative patients from which no false negatives could be detected. As the gold standard for detection of an alcohol-use disorder (AUD), we used the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (MCIDI), which is based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria. RESULTS: On the item level, the reliability, measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), ranged between .39 (Item 9) and .98 (Item 10). For the total score, the ICC was .95. For cut-off values of eight points and five points, 87.5% and 88.9%, respectively, of the AUDIT-positives, and 98.9% and 95.1%, respectively, of the AUDIT-negatives were identically identified at retest, with kappa = .86 and kappa = .81. At the cut-off value of five points, we determined good combinations of sensitivity and specificity for the following diagnoses: alcohol dependence (sensitivity and specificity of .97 and .88, respectively), AUD (.97 and .92), and AUD and/or at-risk consumption (.97 and .91). CONCLUSIONS: Embedded in a health-risk questionnaire in primary-care settings, the AUDIT is a reliable and valid screening instrument to identify at-risk drinkers and patients with an AUD. Our findings strongly suggest a lowering of the recommended cut-off value of eight points.     

Internet-based assessment and self-monitoring of problematic alcohol and drug use

A Swedish web-based service (www.escreen.se) offers self-assessment and self-monitoring of alcohol and drug use via on-line screening with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) as well as in-depth risk assessment using extended versions of both tests (Alcohol-E and DUDIT-E). Users receive individualized feedback concerning their alcohol and drug consumption and can follow their alcohol and drug use over time in personal diagrams and by writing in an electronic diary. This study describes user characteristics, service utilization patterns, and psychometric test properties for 2361 individuals who created a valid account over 20 months starting in February 2007. Problematic alcohol use according to AUDIT criteria was indicated for 67.4%, while 46.0% met DUDIT criteria for problematic drug use. Men and women accessed the service equally, with a mean age of 23 years. Internal consistency reliability figures were 0.90 for 1846 first-time AUDIT users and 0.97 for 1211 first-time DUDIT users; among 213 second-time AUDIT users reliability was 0.93, and 0.96 for 97 second-time DUDIT users. Internet-based alcohol and drug monitoring could function as a self-help tool or as a complement to substance abuse treatment.     

Assessment of binge drinking of alcohol in highly educated employees

This study evaluated the usefulness of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and CAGE, a standardized screening instrument for detecting alcohol dependence in identifying binge drinking among highly educated employees. Brochures were mailed to an entire workforce inviting employees to learn about their coping strategies, stress levels, and risk for alcohol-related problems, with 228 employees providing complete data. Binge drinking in the previous 3 months was reported by 29% of the employees, with greater binge drinking reported by White employees, of mixed/other ethnic background, or younger. The AUDIT achieved a sensitivity of 35% in identifying respondents who reported binge drinking and a specificity of 98% in accurately identifying respondents who did not report binge drinking. Sensitivity using the cut-off of scoring one or more positive hits on the CAGE was 67%, and specificity was 84%. Therefore, neither the AUDIT nor the CAGE achieved adequate sensitivity, as well as specificity, as screening tools for assessing binge drinking. A more accurate method for assessing binge drinking appears to be by directly asking for the largest number of drinks consumed in a single drinking session.     

Factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a mental health clinic sample

OBJECTIVE: To examine the factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and to identify the implications of this structure for its clinical use. METHOD: The AUDIT was administered to mental health clinic outpatients (N = 197; 86% men) at high risk for alcohol-use disorders. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were used to determine the underlying factor structure of the AUDIT for this high-risk population. RESULTS: Confirmatory analyses indicated that the a priori three- and one-factor solutions did not fit the observed data. The exploratory analyses supported a two-factor solution that included level of alcohol consumption and drinking problems, with both factors explaining substantial variance in AUDIT scores. These findings contrast the original three-factor design of the AUDIT and the conventional use of the AUDIT as a one-factor screening device with a single cutoff score. CONCLUSIONS: Other screening methods that incorporate this two-factor model may be important for mental health patient populations. Replication of these findings among other mental health samples is needed.     

Do primary care physicians’ own AUDIT scores predict their use of brief alcohol intervention? A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND: To define whether the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores of primary care physicians themselves predict their willingness to use brief alcohol intervention. METHODS: Cross-sectional self-administered questionnaire survey to all 3193 physicians providing primary health care in Finland. The response rate was 1909 (59.8%). Odds ratios from multinomial regression analysis were calculated for self-reported frequency (never, occasionally or regularly) of conducting brief interventions by physicians with AUDIT scores of 0-1, 2, 3, 4, 5-7 or >or=8. RESULTS: The prevalence of heavy drinkers based on AUDIT score (>or=8) was 14.5% among all physicians, 7.0% among females and 27.0% among males. Of the respondents 9.4% reported doing brief intervention regularly and 50.0% occasionally. AUDIT scores did not significantly predict either regular or occasional use of brief intervention. Instead, some other independent predictors for more frequent use of brief intervention were found. These included having a specialist licence in general practice or occupational health care and the location of the practice, but not gender or age. CONCLUSIONS: The present results indicate that in general heavy drinking among primary care physicians do not explain the low frequency with which brief intervention is used in primary health care.     

Does the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption identify the same patient population as the full 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test?

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a computer-based 3-item version (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption [AUDIT-C]) of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) identifies alcohol use disorder (AUD) in the same patients as the full 10-item version in 809 women and 747 men in an anesthesiology preoperative assessment clinic. According to cutoffs used (AUDIT: 5-8 points, AUDIT-C: 4-6 points), rate of disagreement (AUDIT-positive and AUDIT-C-negative or vice versa) ranged between 4% and 31% (men) and between 4% and 19% (women). In male patients, 15% were positive for both the AUDIT (≥8 points) and the AUDIT-C (≥6 points), 7% were positive for AUDIT-C only, and 4% were positive for AUDIT only. In female patients, using cutoffs of 5 more points (AUDIT) and 4 or more points (AUDIT-C), 16% were positive for both versions, 9% were positive for AUDIT-C only, and 2% were positive for AUDIT only. The AUDIT and AUDIT-C seem to identify AUD in differing patients.     

Work-place screening of mine employees using the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) and alcohol breathalyzation

Although public health campaigns focusing on alcohol in the work-place are receiving increasing attention, there is little empirical evidence regarding the use of screening. In this work-place study, 152 mining personnel (67% of the work-force) completed a self report screen using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). One hundred and thirty-three of these (58.5% of the work-force) also consented to be breathalysed and one (0.75%) recorded a BAC just over threshold for detection. Forty-eight males (37.7% of the male work-force) recorded AUDIT scores of eight or more consistent with hazardous alcohol use and one female registered a cumulative score above the female cut-off level for hazardous alcohol use. Eighty males (67% of the work-force), recorded binge drinking at least monthly and 81 males recorded a cumulative AUDIT score of less than eight; however, on item analysis, 64 (83%) of these recorded binge drinking at least sometimes. There is substantial hazardous alcohol use in this sample work group and younger males had higher alcohol consumption, more adverse consequences and higher total AUDIT scores identifying them as particularly at risk. The Cronbach & AUDIT was 0.72, confirming adequate internal consistency.     

Factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) for men and women in different age groups.

OBJECTIVE: Our main aim was to investigate the factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a Finnish population sample. METHOD: The AUDIT was completed by 3,125 men (mean age = 26.2 years) and 6,006 women (mean age = 26.1 years). RESULTS: At a cutoff score of 8 or more, 49.8% of the men and 23.9% of the women would be identified as potentially engaged in excessive alcohol use. Exploratory factor analyses suggested a two-factor solution for both men and women. However, the factor structure was not invariant between men and women or in the different age groups among men. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest known general population studies on alcohol use in recent years in Finland. The findings support a two-factor solution, and it is suggested that the AUDIT cutoff scores should be tailored according to age, gender, and drinking culture.     

Use of AUDIT for alcohol screening among emergency room patients in Thailand. Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

This study evaluated the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) against blood alcohol levels and medical diagnoses. The population under study included 695 current drinkers admitted to emergency rooms of four regional Thailand hospitals. The AUDIT positivity rate was 61% among 343 patients who drank prior to admission and 32% among 352 patients who did not drink alcohol before admission. Breath alcohol levels were positively associated with AUDIT scores. The sensitivity against a previous or current alcohol-related medical diagnosis was 89%. We concluded that the AUDIT is a satisfactory instrument for alcohol screening in this population.     

Measurements,Instruments, Scales,and Tests: Use of AUDIT for Alcohol Screening among Emergency Room Patients in Thailand

This study evaluated the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) against blood alcohol levels and medical diagnoses. The population under study included 695 current drinkers admitted to emergency rooms of four regional Thailand hospitals. The AUDIT positivity rate was 61% among 343 patients who drank prior to admission and 32% among 352 patients who did not drink alcohol before admission. Breath alcohol levels were positively associated with AUDIT scores. The sensitivity against a previous or current alcohol-related medical diagnosis was 89%. We concluded that the AUDIT is a satisfactory instrument for alcohol screening in this population.