Alcohol screening in young persons attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic

OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of 3 brief alcohol screens (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT], CRAFFT, and CAGE) to identify adolescents and young adults with a current alcohol use disorder (AUD) and to determine whether there are gender-based or race-based differences in screening performance. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of 358 young persons (55% males; 49% blacks; age range, 15-24 years; mean age, 20.6 years) who were attending an urban clinic for sexually transmitted diseases and reported alcohol use during the past year. MEASUREMENTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the ability of the 3 screens to discriminate between participants with and without AUDs detected in the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). RESULTS: One third (33%) of participants met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) criteria for a current AUD (24% with alcohol abuse and 9% with alcohol dependence). The AUDIT performed best at a cut score of 9 (sensitivity, 0.76; specificity, 0.79), CRAFFT at a cut score of 2 (sensitivity, 0.94; specificity, 0.33), and CAGE at a cut score of 1 (sensitivity, 0.69; specificity, 0.63). The AUDIT had the best overall performance (area under the curve [AUC], 0.84), followed closely by CRAFFT (AUC, 0.79) and then CAGE (AUC, 0.70). Performance of screens did not differ by gender. The AUDIT performed slightly better in whites than blacks, but no race-based differences were observed for the CAGE or CRAFFT. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should use the AUDIT or CRAFFT, rather than the CAGE, to screen young persons for AUDs. The AUDIT performs best, but its length may limit its utility in this setting. The CRAFFT is a suitable alternative, with excellent sensitivity and no gender-based or race-based differences.     

Validity of brief alcohol screening tests among adolescents: a comparison of the AUDIT,POSIT, CAGE,and CRAFFT

BACKGROUND: Adolescents should be screened for alcohol misuse as part of routine care. The objective of this study was to compare the criterion validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers substance use/abuse scale (POSIT), and the CAGE and CRAFFT questions among adolescents. METHODS: Fourteen- to 18-year-old patients arriving for routine healthcare at a large, hospital-based adolescent clinic completed the four screens and the criterion standard Adolescent Diagnostic Interview, which yields DSM-IV diagnoses of alcohol abuse and dependence. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to determine optimal cut-points. Areas under the ROC curves of the four screens were compared, and sensitivities and specificities were calculated. RESULTS: Participants' past 12-month alcohol diagnostic classifications were as follows: no use (58.6%), nonproblem use (13.0%), problem use (20.8%), abuse (5.4%), and dependence (2.2%). Optimal cut-points associated with problem use or higher were 2 for AUDIT, 1 for POSIT, 1 for CAGE, and 1 for CRAFFT. ROC curve area of the CAGE was significantly lower compared with areas of all other screens. Sensitivities (95% confidence intervals) were AUDIT 0.88 (0.83-0.93), POSIT 0.84 (0.79-0.90), CAGE 0.37 (0.29-0.44), and CRAFFT 0.92 (0.88-0.96); specificities were AUDIT 0.81 (0.77-0.85), POSIT 0.89 (0.86-0.92), CAGE 0.96 (0.94-0.98), and CRAFFT 0.64 (0.59-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT, POSIT, and CRAFFT have acceptable sensitivity for identifying alcohol problems or disorders in this age group. The CAGE is not recommended for use among adolescents.     

Brief screening questionnaires to identify problem drinking during pregnancy: a systematic review

Aims Although prenatal screening for problem drinking during pregnancy has been recommended, guidance on screening instruments is lacking. We investigated the sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of brief alcohol screening questionnaires to identify problem drinking in pregnant women. Methods Electronic databases from their inception to June 2008 were searched, as well as reference lists of eligible papers and related review papers. We sought cohort or cross‐sectional studies that compared one or more brief alcohol screening questionnaire(s) with reference criteria obtained using structured interviews to detect ‘at‐risk’ drinking, alcohol abuse or dependency in pregnant women receiving prenatal care. Results Five studies (6724 participants) were included. In total, seven instruments were evaluated: TWEAK (Tolerance, Worried, Eye‐opener, Amnesia, Kut down), T‐ACE [Take (number of drinks), Annoyed, Cut down, Eye‐opener], CAGE (Cut down, Annoyed, Guilt, Eye‐opener], NET (Normal drinker, Eye‐opener, Tolerance), AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test), AUDIT‐C (AUDIT‐consumption) and SMAST (Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test). Study quality was generally good, but lack of blinding was a common weakness. For risk drinking sensitivity was highest for T‐ACE (69‐88%), TWEAK (71–91%) and AUDIT‐C (95%), with high specificity (71–89%, 73–83% and 85%, respectively). CAGE and SMAST performed poorly. Sensitivity of AUDIT‐C at score ≥3 was high for past year alcohol dependence (100%) or alcohol use disorder (96%) with moderate specificity (71% each). For life‐time alcohol dependency the AUDIT at score ≥8 performed poorly. Conclusion T‐ACE, TWEAK and AUDIT‐C show promise for screening for risk drinking, and AUDIT‐C may also be useful for identifying alcohol dependency or abuse. However, their performance as stand‐alone tools is uncertain, and further evaluation of questionnaires for prenatal alcohol use is warranted.     

Alcohol use disorders: screening and diagnosis

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of empirically supported, primarily self-report methods of screening and diagnosis related to alcohol use disorders (AUDs). The discussion of screening instruments focuses on the primary care setting, and the diagnosis instruments discussion centers on the alcohol (and other drug) treatment setting. The literature shows that the AUDIT and the CAGE are the most widely validated methods of screening for AUDs in primary care and may be applied readily in that context. Similarly, a number of instruments designed to derive DSM-IV (and ICD-10) AUD diagnoses, as well as constructs related to how AUDs are defined, are available and can meet a variety of clinical needs. Future research priorities include further development of brief methods to identify hazardous drinkers or individuals who have an AUD, as well as refinement of diagnosis instruments to increase their application across treatment settings and subpopulations.     

Alcohol use disorders identification test: factor structure in an adolescent emergency department sample

BACKGROUND: This study examined whether the factor structure of a modified version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) represented the three intended conceptual domains of consumption, dependence symptoms, and alcohol-related consequences in an adolescent sample. Additionally, the utility of factor-specific cut scores in identifying patients with DSM-IV alcohol diagnoses was investigated. METHODS: Adolescents treated for an injury in an emergency department and who reported alcohol use in the last year (n = 173; 57% male, 72% white) constituted the study sample. A modified version of the AUDIT and the alcohol section of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children were administered. The AUDIT's factor structure was determined by confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory principal components analysis. Factor-specific cut scores that identified adolescents with a DSM-IV alcohol diagnosis were determined by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: A two-factor model representing consumption and dependence/consequences provided the best fit to the data. A cut score of 3 on the consumption factor and a cut score of 1 on the dependence/consequences factor demonstrated optimal performance in identifying patients with alcohol diagnoses. The consumption factor had better overall performance compared with the dependence/consequences factor, and it had similar overall performance compared with the AUDIT total score. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT comprised two correlated factors: consumption and dependence/consequences. The better performance of the consumption factor in detecting adolescents with DSM-IV alcohol diagnoses suggests the utility of including consumption items in brief alcohol screens used with adolescents. Results also indicate the need to identify developmentally appropriate alcohol-related problems to enhance screening performance among adolescents.     

Ethnic Differences in Performance of Screening Instruments for Identifying Harmful Drinking and Alcohol Dependence in the Emergency Room

This study examines sensitivity and specificity figures associated with screens used to predict harmful drinking and alcohol dependence among current drinkers. The study population comes from a probability sample of emergency room patients in Jackson, MS. Data are presented by gender and injury status (injured versus noninjured) for Blacks and for Whites. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview was used to assess ICD-10 criteria for harmful drinking and alcohol dependence, which were taken as standards. Predictors include screening instruments (CAGE, AUDIT, brief MAST, TWEAK, and History of Trauma Scale), breathalyzer reading, self-reported consumption before the injury or noninjury event, quantity and frequency of drinking, and an abbreviated alcohol dependence experiences measure used in general population surveys. Single items from these screening instruments were also tested as predictors. Overall, the TWEAK and the AUDIT performed best in terms of sensitivity and specificity, but variation across subgroups suggests that the search for a good screening instrument for general use must be continued.     

The value of CAGE, CUGE, and AUDIT in screening for alcohol abuse and dependence among college freshmen

BACKGROUND: This study attempted to (1) determine the prevalence of alcohol problems in college freshmen, (2) assess the performance of both the CAGE and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaires in this population, and (3) assess the possibility of improving the CAGE and/or AUDIT. METHODS: A sample of 3564 consecutive college freshmen, with a mean age of 18 years, at the Catholic University of Leuven, (Belgium) completed, during a cross-sectional study, a questionnaire assessing drinking behavior and identifying students at risk as defined by DSM-IV criteria. The questionnaire also included the CAGE questionnaire and the AUDIT. Calculations of sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic curves for different scores of the CAGE and the AUDIT were performed, using DSM-IV criteria as the reference standard. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the CAGE and the AUDIT was 0.76 and 0.85, respectively. The cutoff score of 1 for the CAGE was associated with a sensitivity of 42%, a specificity of 87%, a positive predictive value of 36%, and a negative predictive value of 90%. A score of 6 or more for the AUDIT gave a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 78%, a positive predictive value of 37%, and a negative predictive value of 77%. These results were related with a prevalence of 14.1% of alcohol problems. Replacing one question of the CAGE by "often driving under the influence" resulted in the CUGE (acronym for "cut down, under influence, guilty feelings, and eye opener"), with an area under the curve of 0.96, a positive likelihood ratio of 8.7, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of alcohol problems in college students is confirmed to be high. When screening for alcohol problems in a college freshmen population, one question seems extremely important. The newly constructed CUGE questionnaire may improve screening efforts in students, compared with existing questionnaires.     

Using alcohol screening results and treatment history to assess the severity of at-risk drinking in Veterans Affairs primary care patients

Abstract : Background: Primary care providers need practical methods for managing patients who screen positive for at‐risk drinking. We evaluated whether scores on brief alcohol screening questionnaires and patient reports of prior alcohol treatment reflect the severity of recent problems due to drinking. Methods: Veterans Affairs general medicine outpatients who screened positive for at‐risk drinking were mailed questionnaires that included the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and a question about prior alcohol treatment or participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (“previously treated”). AUDIT questions 4 through 10 were used to measure past‐year problems due to drinking (PYPD). Cross‐sectional analyses compared the prevalence of PYPD and mean Past‐Year AUDIT Symptom Scores (0–28 points) among at‐risk drinkers with varying scores on the CAGE (0–4) and AUDIT‐C (0–12) and varying treatment histories. Results: Of 7861 male at‐risk drinkers who completed questionnaires, 33.9% reported PYPD. AUDIT‐C scores were more strongly associated with Past‐Year AUDIT Symptom Scores than the CAGE (p < 0.0005). The prevalence of PYPD increased from 33% to 46% over the range of positive CAGE scores but from 29% to 77% over the range of positive AUDIT‐C scores. Among subgroups of at‐risk drinkers with the same screening scores, patients who reported prior treatment were more likely than never‐treated at‐risk drinkers to report PYPD and had higher mean Past‐Year AUDIT Symptom Scores (p < 0.0005). We propose a simple method of risk‐stratifying patients using AUDIT‐C scores and alcohol treatment histories. Conclusions: AUDIT‐C scores combined with one question about prior alcohol treatment can help estimate the severity of PYPD among male Veterans Affairs outpatients.     

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT) in a routine workplace health examination

BACKGROUND: Only a few studies on workplaces have examined the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT) as screening instruments for the early identification of elevated and risky levels of alcohol consumption. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of AUDIT, CDT, and gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) in a routine health examination (alcohol screening) in the workplace. METHODS: The study, carried out over 16 months in a large workplace in the transport sector, was part of an on-going controlled study. Employees who came to the company health service for a routine health examination were offered the opportunity to undergo an alcohol screening and check their alcohol habits. RESULTS: Of the 570 subjects who participated, 105 (18.4%) screened positive according to AUDIT, CDT, or both. Only 7.6% of the persons who screened positive did so according to both instruments. If GGT had been included as a screening instrument, the proportion of positive results would have increased to 22.0%. If we had only used AUDIT in the screening process, the proportion of positives would have fallen by nearly half. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that AUDIT and CDT are complementary instruments for alcohol screening in a routine workplace health examination, and each has value for identifying a different segment of the risky drinking population.     

Is the Full Version of the AUDIT Really Necessary? Study of the Validity and Internal Construct of Its Abbreviated Versions

Background: This study was aimed at assessing the psychometric qualities of the abbreviated versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT‐3, AUDIT‐4, AUDIT‐C, AUDIT‐PC, AUDIT‐QF, FAST, and Five‐Shot) and at comparing them to the 10‐item AUDIT and the CAGE in 2 samples of Brazilian adults. Methods: The validity and internal consistency of the scales were assessed in a sample of 530 subjects attended at an emergency department and at a Psychosocial Care Center for Alcohol and Drugs. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV was used as the diagnostic comparative measure for the predictive validity assessment. The concurrent validity between the scales was analyzed by means of Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results: The assessment of the predictive validity of the abbreviated versions showed high sensitivity (of 0.78 to 0.96) and specificity (of 0.74 to 0.94) indices, with areas under the curve as elevated as those of the AUDIT (0.89 and 0.92 to screen for abuse and 0.93 and 0.95 in the screening of dependence). The CAGE presented lower indices: 0.81 for abuse and 0.87 for dependence. The analysis of the internal consistency of the AUDIT and its versions exhibited Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between 0.83 and 0.94, while the coefficient for the CAGE was 0.78. Significant correlations were found between the 10‐item AUDIT and its versions, ranging from 0.91 to 0.99. Again, the results for the CAGE were satisfactory (0.77), although inferior to the other instruments. Conclusions: The results obtained in this study confirm the validity of the abbreviated versions of the AUDIT for the screening of alcohol use disorders and show that their psychometric properties are as satisfactory as those of the 10‐item AUDIT and the CAGE.     

A Critical Evaluation of Several Alcohol Screening Instruments Using the CIDI-SAM as a Criterion Measure

Four alcohol screening instruments (the AUDIT, CAGE, MAST, and Svanum's scale) were administered to a sample of 306 undergraduate students at a Midwestern university and were compared with regard to several test characteristics, using the alcohol section of the CIDI-SAM (DSM-IV version) as the criterion measure. The performance of these instruments was evaluated using two subsets of subjects: (1) students who currently met diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence ( n = 35); and (2) students who met diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence in the past and/or at present (i.e., lifetime diagnosis; n = 50). The AUDIT performed significantly better than the other three instruments in identifying students who were currently alcohol dependent, providing a moderate degree of clinical utility with this group. The four instruments did not differ significantly in their ability to identify students with a lifetime diagnosis; each measure provided only a modest degree of clinical utility with this group.     

Screening for alcohol problems in the U.S. general population: comparison of the CAGE,RAPS4, and RAPS4-QF by gender,ethnicity, and service utilization. Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the performance (sensitivity and specificity) of two brief screening instruments, CAGE and the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen 4 (RAPS4), against ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence and abuse in a representative sample of the U.S. adult household population by gender, ethnicity, and service utilization (emergency room and primary care) in the last year. METHODS: Data are from the Alcohol Research Group's 2000 National Alcohol Survey (n = 7612), which is a computer-assisted telephone interview survey of the U.S. general population 18 and over in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the RAPS4 (0.86) was better than the CAGE (0.67) given similar specificity (0.95 vs. 0.98) and outperformed the CAGE for alcohol dependence across all gender, ethnic, and service utilization groups, except among blacks and Hispanics. The RAPS4 also performed equally well for females and males (0.88 vs. 0.85), whereas sensitivity of the CAGE was lower for females. Although sensitivity of the RAPS4 was better than the CAGE for alcohol abuse, sensitivity was low for both (0.56 and 0.36, respectively). When quantity-frequency (QF) questions (drinking five or more drinks on at least one occasion during the last year and drinking as often as once a month during the last year) were added to the RAPS4, the RAPS4-QF performed significantly better for alcohol abuse and outperformed the CAGE at a cut point of one across all gender, ethnic, and service utilization groups. The RAPS4-QF appeared to be most sensitive for alcohol abuse among both males and females reporting emergency room use (0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the RAPS4 outperforms the CAGE in this general population sample. The addition of a QF question to the RAPS4 improves performance in relation to sensitivity for alcohol abuse, and the RAPS4 and RAPS4-QF may be the instruments of choice in brief screening for alcohol use disorders. Additional research is needed to further explore these issues.     

Development of a Screening Questionnaire for the General Hospital and General Practices

The purpose of this study was to develop a sensitive as well as brief screening questionnaire by combining the well-known instruments CAGE and the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) in detecting patients with alcohol dependence or abuse in general hospitals and general practices. The number of items was reduced by means of logistic regression and item analysis based on data of 1, 167 consecutive admissions of a general hospital who completed both questionnaires. Further data were derived from a sample of 774 patients from 10 randomly selected general practices. A solution with nine items was validated in a second sample of 436 hospital inpatients. In all three samples, cases screening positive were interviewed using the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry to provide ICD-10 and DSM-Ill-R or DSM-IV diagnosis. In addition, 103 subjects with negative screening results were interviewed in the second general hospital sample. On grounds of the data of all three samples, a solution of seven items was chosen. This instrument comprises two CAGE and five MAST questions (Luebeck Alcohol Dependence and Abuse Screening Test; LAST) and was significantly higher in sensitivity than CAGE and SMAST. Data were robust in all three samples. It is concluded that the LAST is an optimized instrument for use in general hospital and general practice.     

Gender differences in the performance of a computerized version of the alcohol use disorders identification test in subcritically injured patients who are admitted to the emergency department

OBJECTIVE: The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) has been recommended as a screening tool to detect patients who are appropriate candidates for brief, preventive alcohol interventions. Lower AUDIT cutoff scores have been proposed for women; however, the appropriate value remains unknown. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the optimal AUDIT cutpoint for detecting alcohol problems in subcritically injured male and female patients who are treated in the emergency department (ED). An additional purpose of the study was to determine whether computerized screening for alcohol problems is feasible in this setting. METHODS: The study was performed in the ED of a large, urban university teaching hospital. During an 8-month period, 1205 male and 722 female injured patients were screened using an interactive computerized lifestyle assessment that included the AUDIT as an embedded component. World Health Organization criteria were used to define alcohol dependence and harmful drinking. World Health Organization criteria for excessive consumption were used to define high-risk drinking. The ability of the AUDIT to classify appropriately male and female patients as having one of these three conditions was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Criteria for any alcohol use disorder were present in 17.5% of men and 6.8% of women. The overall accuracy of the AUDIT was good to excellent. At a specificity >0.80, sensitivity was 0.75 for men using a cutoff of 8 points and 0.84 for women using a cutoff of 5 points. Eighty-five percent of patients completed computerized screening without the need for additional help. CONCLUSIONS: Different AUDIT scoring thresholds for men and women are required to achieve comparable sensitivity and specificity when using the AUDIT to screen injured patients in the ED. Computerized AUDIT administration is feasible and may help to overcome time limitations that may compromise screening in this busy clinical environment.     

The alcohol use disorders identification test: an update of research findings

BACKGROUND: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) has been extensively researched to determine its capability to accurately and practically screen for alcohol problems. METHODS: During the 5 years since our previous review of the literature, a large number of additional studies have been published on the AUDIT, abbreviated versions of it, its psychometric properties, and the applicability of the AUDIT for a diverse array of populations. The current article summarizes new findings and integrates them with results of previous research. It also suggests some issues that we believe are particularly in need of further study. RESULTS: A growing body of research evidence supports the criterion validity of English version of the AUDIT as a screen for alcohol dependence as well as for less severe alcohol problems. Nevertheless, the cut-points for effective detection of hazardous drinking as well as identification of alcohol dependence or harmful use in women need to be lowered from the originally recommended value of 8 points. The AUDIT-C, the most popular short version of the AUDIT consisting solely of its 3 consumption items, is approximately equal in accuracy to the full AUDIT. Psychometric properties of the AUDIT, such as test-retest reliability and internal consistency, are quite favorable. Continued research is urged to establish the psychometric properties of non-English versions of the AUDIT, use of the AUDIT with adolescents and with older adults, and selective inclusion of alcohol biomarkers with the AUDIT in some instances. CONCLUSIONS: Research continues to support use of the AUDIT as a means of screening for the spectrum of alcohol use disorders in various settings and with diverse populations.     

Comparison of Screening Instruments for Alcohol Problems Between Black and White Emergency Room Patients from Two Regions of the Country

A number of brief screening instruments to identify alcohol dependence exist, but the validity of these instruments across ethnic groups or regions of the country is not well established. The sensitivity and specificity of a number of standard screening instruments (CAGE, brief MAST, AUDIT, TWEAK, and RAPS), as well as other measures (History of Trauma Scale, breathalyzer reading, self-reported drinking before the event, and consuming five or more drinks at a sitting at least monthly) are compared against ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence between probability samples of Black and White emergency room patients in Santa Clara County, CA (n= 716) and in Jackson, MS (n= 1330). Variability in the sensitivity of screening instruments among current drinkers was found to be greater between samples for both Blacks and Whites, than for Blacks compared with Whites within the same sample. The AUDIT, TWEAK, and RAPS seemed to perform well by gender and injury status for both Blacks and Whites in the two samples, and no significant differences were found in the performance of these instruments across sample sites. To evaluate the influence of regional differences in alcohol dependence on differences found in the performance of screening instruments, using logistic regression with the simultaneous entry of demographic variables (age, gender, ethnicity, injury status, and site) and drinking variables (breathalyzer reading, serf-reported drinking before the event, and drinking five or more drinks at a sitting at least monthly) to predict alcohol dependence in a merged sample of these patients (Jackson vs. Santa Clara) site was not found to be significant Data suggest that, whereas region of the country may not be important in predicting alcohol dependence in emergency room populations, regional differences in the performance of screening instruments for alcohol dependence may exist, even when ethnicity is taken into account Given distinct regional differences in drinking patterns and problems in the U.S., further research on commonly used screening instruments is needed to determine those screeners most efficient for identifying problem drinking.     

Are there differences between older persons who screen positive on the CAGE questionnaire and the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test-Geriatric Version?

OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) the extent of agreement between the CAGE (acronym for cut down, annoyed by criticism, guilty about drinking, eye-opener drinks) and the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test-Geriatric Version (SMAST-G) in identifying older persons who may have possible alcohol use disorders (AUDs) and (2) whether persons identified as having possible AUDs by each of these screening measures differ in their drinking, demographic, or health-related characteristics. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study using data from a self-administered mailed survey sample. SETTING: Three organizations were surveyed: (1) members of the American Association of Retired Persons and, in southern California, (2) managed care enrollees in a large medical group and (3) attendees of a community-based senior health center. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand eight hundred eighty-nine persons aged 55 and older completing a health risk appraisal for older persons (Health Risk Appraisal for the Elderly (HRA-E)). MEASUREMENTS: The HRA-E included items on drinking behaviors (including amount of alcohol use, the CAGE, and the SMAST-G) and health and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of all persons screened positive on the CAGE or the SMAST-G. Fewer than half of all persons screening positive on either the CAGE or the SMAST-G, screened positive on both measures. Among current drinkers, persons screening positive on the SMAST-G alone drank less than persons screening positive on the CAGE alone, and these persons drank less than those screening positive on both the SMAST-G and the CAGE. More men screened positive on the CAGE alone than on the SMAST-G alone. CONCLUSION: Fewer than half of persons screening positive on either the CAGE or the SMAST-G screened positive on both measures, suggesting that these instruments may be capturing different aspects of unsafe drinking. A screening strategy employing both brief measures may identify more AUDs among older persons having differing demographic and health characteristics.     

AUDIT-C as a brief screen for alcohol misuse in primary care

BACKGROUND: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions have been previously validated as a 3-item screen for alcohol misuse and implemented nationwide in Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient clinics. However, the AUDIT-C's validity and optimal screening threshold(s) in other clinical populations are unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional validation study compared screening questionnaires with standardized interviews in 392 male and 927 female adult outpatients at an academic family practice clinic from 1993 to 1994. The AUDIT-C, full AUDIT, self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, and an augmented CAGE questionnaire were compared with an interview primary reference standard of alcohol misuse, defined as a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th ed. alcohol use disorder and/or drinking above recommended limits in the past year. RESULTS: Based on interviews with 92% of eligible patients, 128 (33%) men and 177 (19%) women met the criteria for alcohol misuse. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for the AUDIT-C were 0.94 (0.91, 0.96) and 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) in men and women, respectively (p=0.04). Based on AUROC curves, the AUDIT-C performed as well as the full AUDIT and significantly better than self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, or the augmented CAGE questionnaire (p-values <0.001). The AUDIT-C screening thresholds that simultaneously maximized sensitivity and specificity were > or =4 in men (sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.89) and > or =3 in women (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT-C was an effective screening test for alcohol misuse in this primary care sample. Optimal screening thresholds for alcohol misuse among men (> or =4) and women (> or =3) were the same as in previously published VA studies.     

Effectiveness of structured questionnaires for screening heavy drinking in middle-aged women

BACKGROUND: There is a need for an effective and feasible alcohol screening instrument. The aim of the study was to evaluate how the abbreviated versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaire perform in comparison with the original AUDIT and what the optimal cutoffs are when screening for heavy drinking among women. METHODS: All the 40-year-old women in the city of Tampere, Finland, are invited yearly for a health screening. From 1 year, data from 894 women (response rate 68.2%) invited for a health screening were utilized in the study. The original 10-item AUDIT, AUDIT-C, Five Shot, AUDIT-PC, AUDIT-3, AUDIT-QF, and CAGE were evaluated against the Timeline Followback. Consumption of at least 140 g of absolute ethanol per week on average during the past month was considered heavy drinking. RESULTS: In the Timeline Followback, the mean+/-SD weekly reported alcohol consumption was 45+/-67 g (range 0-936 g) of absolute ethanol. Of the women, 6.2% (55/894) were heavy drinkers. The optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity was reached for the AUDIT with cutoff > or =6, for the AUDIT-C with cutoff > or =5, for the Five Shot with cutoff > or =2.0, for the AUDIT-PC with cutoff > or =4, and for the AUDIT-QF with cutoff > or =4. When choosing the optimal cutoffs, the AUDIT-C, the Five Shot, the AUDIT-PC, and the AUDIT-QF performed as well as the 10-item AUDIT. With these cutoffs, sensitivities were 0.84 to 0.93 and specificities were 0.83 to 0.90. The AUDIT-3 and the CAGE did not perform as well as the other questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The 10-item AUDIT, AUDIT-C, Five Shot, AUDIT-PC, and AUDIT-QF seem to be equally effective tools in screening for heavy drinking among middle-aged women. However, their applicability is achieved only if the cutoffs are tailored according to gender.     

Contrasting Self-Report Screens for Alcohol Problems: A Review

Current trends in conceptions of alcohol problems and provision of health care put increased emphasis on identifying individuals whose alcohol use and problems cover a range of severity. The purpose of this study is to begin to provide information on the relative utility of self-report measures designed to identify (screen for) individuals with alcohol problems. To achieve this goal, the empirical literature on contrasts of self-report screening measures was reviewed, and 13 relevant studies across diverse settings and subject populations were identified. The review showed that the CAGE, the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST), and the short MAST (sMAST) have been the most widely studied self-report instruments to screen for alcohol problems. Direct comparisons show the MAST to be more sensitive than the CAGE, but with elderly patients the CAGE may perform better than the MAST. Furthermore, available data suggest that the CAGE and the sMAST perform comparably. Finally, the CAGE, MAST, and sMAST all perform best when predicting criteria most similar to those the instruments were designed to reflect. The study concludes with a discussion of priorities for research on screening instruments.