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.     

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) as a screening tool for excessive drinking in primary care: reliability and validity of a French version

BACKGROUND: Excessive drinking is a major problem in Western countries. AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) is a 10-item questionnaire developed as a transcultural screening tool to detect excessive alcohol consumption and dependence in primary health care settings. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to validate a French version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). METHODS: We conducted a validation cross-sectional study in three French-speaking areas (Paris, Geneva and Lausanne). We examined psychometric properties of AUDIT as its internal consistency, and its capacity to correctly diagnose alcohol abuse or dependence as defined by DSM-IV and to detect hazardous drinking (defined as alcohol intake >30 g pure ethanol per day for men and >20 g of pure ethanol per day for women). We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and Receiver Operator Characteristic curves. Finally, we compared the ability of AUDIT to accurately detect "alcohol abuse/dependence" with that of CAGE and MAST. RESULTS: 1207 patients presenting to outpatient clinics (Switzerland, n = 580) or general practitioners' (France, n = 627) successively completed CAGE, MAST and AUDIT self-administered questionnaires, and were independently interviewed by a trained addiction specialist. AUDIT showed a good capacity to discriminate dependent patients (with AUDIT > or =13 for males, sensitivity 70.1%, specificity 95.2%, PPV 85.7%, NPV 94.7% and for females sensitivity 94.7%, specificity 98.2%, PPV 100%, NPV 99.8%); and hazardous drinkers (with AUDIT > or =7, for males sensitivity 83.5%, specificity 79.9%, PPV 55.0%, NPV 82.7% and with AUDIT > or =6 for females, sensitivity 81.2%, specificity 93.7%, PPV 64.0%, NPV 72.0%). AUDIT gives better results than MAST and CAGE for detecting "Alcohol abuse/dependence" as showed on the comparative ROC curves. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT questionnaire remains a good screening instrument for French-speaking primary care.     

A Review of Research on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)

Research on the core version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is reviewed. Sensitivities and specificities of the AUDIT for criteria of current hazardous use and, to a slightly lesser extent, lifetime alcohol dependence are high. In general, AUDIT scores are at least moderately related to other self-report alcohol screening tests. Several studies also show them as correlated with biochemical measures of drinking. Results of the AUDIT have also been associated with more distal indicators of problematic drinking. Indices of internal consistency, including Cronbach's α and item-total correlations, are generally in the 0.80's. Future directions for research on the AUDIT are suggested.     

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.     

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) as a screen for at-risk drinking in primary care patients of different racial/ethnic backgrounds

This study examined the operating characteristics of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) as a screen for "at-risk" drinking in a multi-ethnic sample of primary care patients, from a family practice center located in the southwestern United States. A probability sample of 1333 family medicine patients, stratified by gender and racial/ethnic background (white, African-American and Mexican-American) completed the AUDIT, followed by the Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule (AUDADIS) to determine ICD-10 diagnoses. Indicators of hazardous alcohol use and alcohol-related problems were included as measures of "at-risk" drinking. Despite differences in the spectrum of alcohol problems across patient subgroups, there was no evidence of gender or racial/ethnic bias in the AUDIT as indicated by Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve analysis. Excluding abstainers from the analysis had little impact on screening efficacy. In this patient population, the AUDIT appears to be an unbiased measure of "at-risk" drinking.     

The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) in a college sample.

This study was conducted to estimate the psychometric properties of the questionnaire section of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a college sample using DSM-III criteria for alcohol abuse as the criterion standard. This alcohol screening test was developed for the 10 country AMETHYST project. In this young adult sample the instrument exhibited a sensitivity of .84 and specificity of .71 when utilizing the recommended cut-off score of 11. The 10-item questionnaire section of the AUDIT appears to have important advantages over other alcohol screening instruments such as the CAGE and the MAST.     

Reliability and validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) imbedded within a general health risk screening questionnaire: results of a survey in 332 primary care patients

BACKGROUND: Self-administered, general health risk screening questionnaires that are administered while patients wait in the doctor's office may be a reasonable and timesaving approach to address the requirements of preventive medicine in a typical 10-min medical visit. The psychometric characteristics of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) incorporated within a health questionnaire (H-AUDIT) have not been examined. METHODS: The reliability and validity of the self-administered AUDIT were compared between the H-AUDIT and the AUDIT used as a single scale (S-AUDIT) in 332 primary care patients. RESULTS: No major demographic or alcohol use characteristics were found between the 166 subjects who completed the H-AUDIT and the 166 individuals who completed the S-AUDIT. The test-retest reliability of the 166 subjects who completed the H-AUDIT [estimated by Spearman correlation coefficient at a 6-week interval (0.88), internal consistency (total correlation coefficients for all items ranged from 0.38 to 0.69; Cronbach alpha index 0.85), and the sensitivity and specificity of the H-AUDIT were used to identify at-risk drinkers' areas under receiver operating characteristic (0.77) and alcohol-dependent subjects' areas under receiver operating characteristic (0.89)] was similar to the same measurements obtained with the 166 individuals who completed the S-AUDIT. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT incorporated in a health risk screening questionnaire is a reliable and valid self-administered instrument to identify at-risk drinkers and alcohol-dependent individuals in primary care settings.     

Validity of the alcohol use disorders identification test in college students

BACKGROUND: High-risk alcohol use among college students is associated with accidents, partner violence, unwanted sexual encounters, tobacco use, and performance issues. The identification and treatment of high-risk drinking students is a priority for many college campuses and college health centers. The goal of this study was to test the psychometric properties of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in college students. METHODS: A convenience sample of students coming into a college health clinic was asked to complete the 10-question AUDIT and then participate in a research interview. The interview focused on assessing students for alcohol abuse and dependence by using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module and timeline follow-back procedures to assess a 28-day drinking history. RESULTS: A total of 302 students met the eligibility criteria and agreed to participate in the study. The sample consisted of 185 females (61%) and 117 males (39%), with a mean age of 20.3 years. Forty students were abstinent, 88 were high-risk drinkers, and 103 met criteria for a 12-month history of dependence. Receiver operator curves demonstrated that the AUDIT had the highest area under the cure for detecting high-risk alcohol use (0.872) and the lowest for identifying persons with a lifetime history of alcohol abuse or dependence (0.775). An AUDIT cutoff score of 6 or greater demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.0% and a specificity of 60.0% in the detection of high-risk drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT has reasonable psychometric properties in sample of college students using student health services. This study supports the use of the AUDIT in this 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.     

Validation of the French version of the alcohol, smoking and substance involvement screening test (ASSIST)

Background: The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) was developed to detect substance use disorders. Aims: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the French version of ASSIST in various clinical groups with different levels of substance use. Methods: 150 subjects were recruited from clients attending primary health care, psychiatric and addiction treatment facilities. Measures included ASSIST, Addiction Severity Index (ASI), Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI-Plus), Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and Revised Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire-Smoking (RTQ). Results and Conclusion: Concurrent validity was demonstrated by significant correlations between ASSIST scores and scores from ASI, AUDIT and RTQ, as well as significantly greater ASSIST scores for patients with a MINI-Plus diagnosis of abuse or dependence. The ASSIST questionnaire was found to have high internal consistency for the total substance involvement as well as for specific substance involvement as assessed with Cronbach's α, ranging from 0.74 to 0.93. When possibly computed, ASSIST cutoff scores have interesting sensitivity and specificity for discrimination between use and abuse and between abuse and dependence. The findings demonstrated that the French version of ASSIST is a valid screening test for identifying substance use disorders in various health care settings, including psychiatric settings.     

The TWEAK is weak for alcohol screening among female Veterans Affairs outpatients

BACKGROUND: The optimal brief questionnaire for alcohol screening among female patients has not yet been identified. This study compared the performance of the TWEAK (tolerance, worried, eye-opener, amnesia, cutdown), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and the AUDIT Consumption (AUDIT-C) as self-administered screening tests for hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence among female Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients. METHODS: Women were included in the study if they received care at VA Puget Sound and completed both a self-administered survey containing the AUDIT and TWEAK screening questionnaires and subsequent in-person interviews with the Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule. Sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were computed for each screening questionnaire compared with two interview-based comparison standards: (1) active DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence and (2) hazardous drinking and/or active DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence, the more appropriate target for primary care screening. RESULTS: Of 393 women who completed screening questionnaires and interviews, 39 (9.9%) met diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence, and 89 (22.7%) met criteria for hazardous drinking or alcohol abuse or dependence. The TWEAK had relatively low sensitivities (0.62 and 0.44) but adequate specificities (0.86 and 0.89) for both interview-based comparison standards, even at its lowest cut-point (>/=1). The AUDIT and AUDIT-C were superior, with the following areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for active alcohol abuse or dependence and hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence, respectively: AUDIT, 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.95] and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91); AUDIT-C, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.94); and TWEAK, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The TWEAK has low sensitivity as an alcohol-screening questionnaire among female VA outpatients and should be evaluated further before being used in other female primary care populations. The three-item AUDIT-C was the optimal brief alcohol-screening questionnaire in this study.     

Alcohol use disorders among emergency department-treated older adolescents: a new brief screen (RUFT-Cut) using the AUDIT, CAGE, CRAFFT, and RAPS-QF

BACKGROUND: Early identification of alcohol use disorders (AUD) among emergency department (ED)-treated patients is important for facilitating intervention and further evaluation outside EDs. A number of brief screening instruments have been developed for identifying patients with AUD, but it is not clear whether they are practical and perform well with older adolescents in an ED setting. This study contrasted four brief screening instruments for detecting DSM-IV-defined AUD and tested a newly developed brief screen for use among ED-treated older adolescents. METHODS: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the CAGE, the CRAFFT, and a modified RAPS-QF were given to 93 alcohol-using older adolescents (55% men; aged 18-20 years) in an ED. Receiver operator characteristic analyses were used to evaluate the performance of brief screens against the criterion of a lifetime DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence diagnosis. RESULTS: Of existing instruments, the AUDIT had the best overall performance in identifying AUD (sensitivity, 82%; specificity, 78%). A new, shorter screening instrument composed of two AUDIT items, two CRAFFT items, and one CAGE item (RUFT-Cut) performed as well as the AUDIT (sensitivity, 82%; specificity, 78%). CONCLUSIONS: Among existing alcohol screening instruments, the AUDIT performed best for identifying ED-treated older adolescents with alcohol use disorders. The RUFT-Cut is a brief screening instrument for AUD that shows promise for identifying ED-treated older adolescents who are in need of intervention or further evaluation. Future research should focus on use of the RUFT-Cut in other settings with larger, more diverse samples of adolescents.     

Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption-II

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (A UDIT) has been developed from a six-country WHO collaborative project as a screening instrument for hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption. It is a 10-item questionnaire which covers the domains of alcohol consumption, drinking behaviour, and alcohol-related problems. Questions were selected from a 150-item assessment schedule (which was administered to 1888 persons attending representative primary health care facilities) on the basis of their representativeness for these conceptual domains and their perceived usefulness for intervention. Responses to each question are scored from 0 to 4, giving a maximum possible score of 40. Among those diagnosed as having hazardous or harmful alcohol use, 92% had an AUDIT score of 8 or more, and 94% of those with non-hazardous consumption had a score of less than 8. AUDIT provides a simple method of early detection of hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary health care settings and is the first instrument of its type to be derived on the basis of a cross-national study.     

Brief Intervention for Problem Drinkers in a Chinese Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial in a Hospital Setting

Background:  Alcohol is a legal and accessible substance in Taiwan. As excessive alcohol has been linked to health and social problems, it is necessary to develop a brief, rapid, and low-cost tool to help health care providers deal with persons in Taiwan whose alcohol consumption has become hazardous or harmful to their health.
Methods:  A randomized controlled clinical trial with 6- and 12-month follow-ups was designed. Eighteen medical/surgical units at a medical center in northern Taiwan were randomly assigned to 2 groups: experimental ( n  = 9) and control ( n  = 9). Inpatients on the units were enrolled if they met the following criteria: were older than 18 years, had no severe psychiatric illness, and were not pregnant. The experimental group ( n  = 138) received the intervention, a 15-minute counseling visit in which nurses screened participants using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), provided a health promotion booklet for adults, and individually discussed the booklet contents with patients based on their drinking level (AUDIT score). The control group ( n  = 137) received no treatment. Patterns of alcohol consumption were determined by AUDIT scores at baseline, 6, and 12 months later.
Results:  Alcohol use disorders identification test scores decreased significantly in both groups at 6 months after the intervention, but did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, 12 months after the brief alcohol intervention, experimental subjects' AUDIT scores were significantly better than those of the control group.
Conclusions:  Our brief alcohol intervention provided a 12-month benefit for problem drinkers in Taiwan.     

Validation of the Alcohol, Smoking And Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST)

AIM: The concurrent, construct and discriminative validity of the World Health Organization's Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) were examined in a multi-site international study. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand and 47 participants, recruited from drug treatment (n = 350) and primary health care (PHC) settings (n = 697), were administered a battery of instruments. MEASUREMENTS: Measures included the ASSIST; the Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI-Lite); the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS); the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI-Plus); the Rating of Injection Site Condition (RISC); the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST); the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT); the Revised Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire (RTQ); and the Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP). FINDINGS: Concurrent validity was demonstrated by significant correlations between ASSIST scores and scores from the ASI-Lite (r = 0.76-0.88), SDS (r = 0.59), AUDIT (r = 0.82) and RTQ (r = 0.78); and significantly greater ASSIST scores for those with MINI-Plus diagnoses of abuse or dependence (P < 0.001). Construct validity was established by significant correlations between ASSIST scores and measures of risk factors for the development of drug and alcohol problems (r = 0.48-0.76). Discriminative validity was established by the capacity of the ASSIST to discriminate between substance use, abuse and dependence. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to establish cut-off scores with suitable specificities (50-96%) and sensitivities (54-97%) for most substances. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrated that the ASSIST is a valid screening test for identifying psychoactive substance use in individuals who use a number of substances and have varying degrees of substance use.     

Concurrent validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT zones in defining levels of severity among out-patients with alcohol dependence in the COMBINE study

AIMS: To examine among alcohol-dependent out-patient clients the concurrent validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) total score and 'zones' suggested by the World Health Organization for defining levels of severity of alcohol use problems. DESIGN: Participants were classified into AUDIT zones (AUDIT total score = 8-15, 16-19, 20-40) and compared on measures of demographics, treatment goals, alcohol consumption, alcohol-related consequences, severity of dependence, physiological dependence, tolerance, withdrawal and biomarkers of alcohol use. SETTING: Eleven out-patient academic clinical research centers across the United States. Participants Alcohol dependent individuals (n = 1335) entering out-patient treatment in the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions (COMBINE) study. MEASUREMENTS: The AUDIT was administered as part of an initial screening. Baseline measures used for concurrent validation included the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition (DSM-IV) Disorders, the Alcohol Dependence Scale, the Drinker Inventory of Consequences, the Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking Scale, the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment, the Thoughts about Abstinence Scale, the Form-90, %carbohydrate-deficient transferrin and gamma-glutamyl transferase. Findings Indicators of severity of dependence and alcohol-related problems increased linearly with total score and differed significantly across AUDIT zones. The highest zone, with scores of 20 and above, was markedly different with respect to severity from the other two zones and members of this group endorsed an abstinence goal more strongly. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT total score is a brief measure that appears to provide an index of severity of dependence in a sample of alcohol-dependent individuals seeking out-patient treatment, extending its potential utility beyond its more traditional role as a screening instrument in general populations.     

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): establishment of cut-off scores in a hospitalized Chinese population

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use has become a problem for Taiwanese society. Developing a brief, rapid, and flexible tool to screen an individual's alcohol consumption is important. Many countries use the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) to screen for harmful and dangerous alcohol consumption. The psychometric characteristics of the AUDIT have not been examined in a Chinese population. METHODS: Determination of the cutoff points for the AUDIT Chinese version included three stages: translating the questionnaire, expert review and formal testing on subjects. Participants (N = 112) were recruited from a medical research center of four gastroenterology wards in northern Taiwan. RESULTS: The cutoff point for participants diagnosed as "harmful users" was an AUDIT score of 8. The sensitivity was 0.96, specificity was 0.85, positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.85, negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.96, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.93. The cutoff point for participants diagnosed as "alcohol dependent" was an AUDIT score of 11. The sensitivity was 0.94, specificity was 0.63, PPV was 0.31, NPV was 0.98, and AUROC was 0.84. Furthermore, males had significantly higher AUDIT and AUDIT-C scores. Males were also significantly more likely than females to be diagnosed as harmful users or alcohol dependents. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of the AUDIT gave the same cutoff point for harmful alcohol use by Taiwanese individuals as that set by the World Health Organization. This finding shows that this cutoff point is generally appropriate in screening for problem alcohol consumption. Moreover, the cutoff AUDIT score of 11 for alcohol dependence provides a reference for screening in Taiwanese clinics.     

Oral and Dental Health in Alcohol Misusing Patients

Dental and oral health and their relationship to nutritional status among a group of alcohol misusers ( n = 107) from south London is reported. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaire was validated as an accurate and reliable screening questionnaire for use in alcohol misuse detection by a dentist. Half of the study population consumed >200 units of alcohol/week, and 80% were heavy smokers. A high incidence of tooth wear and trauma to the dentition was recorded. Eight subjects had oral mucosal lesions, including two previously treated carcinomas. The dental health in alcoholics overall was not compromised, but nutritional impairment (body mass index and reduced midarm muscle circumference) was associated with periodontal lesions. Oral mucosal health of alcoholics is of concern, particularly in heavy smokers. The interrelationships between dental-oral health and alcohol-tobacco usage have implications for preventative counseling in this patient group.     

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.     

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.