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.     

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.     

Psychometric Properties of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) in Public First Responders

Problematic alcohol consumption is prevalent among first responders because alcohol is commonly used to cope with occupational stress and frequent exposure to traumatic incidents, making them an at-risk population for alcohol use disorders (AUD). This study investigated the psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) among public first responders. The Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV-Text Revision (SCID), AUDIT-C, AUDIT, and CAGE were administered to 222 public first responders, who were recruited by convenience sampling. One-week test–retest reliability was evaluated in a subsample (n = 24). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and estimate the optimal cut-off scores for any AUD and alcohol dependence. Three different analytic criteria were utilized to calculate the cut-off scores. The AUDIT-C demonstrated good test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient for test–retest reliability = 0.91) and satisfactory convergent validity. The areas under the ROC curves for any AUD and alcohol dependence of the AUDIT-C were 0.87 and 0.93, respectively. For any AUD, all three criteria suggested a cut-off score of 7.5 (sensitivity = 81.8%, specificity = 79.8%), whereas for alcohol dependence, a cut-off score of 8.5 (sensitivity = 85.7%, specificity = 86.1%) was derived from two criteria. In conclusion, the AUDIT-C demonstrated good reliability and validity and proved to be a brief and effective screening test for AUD among first responders.     

Binge drinking and its detection among middle-aged men using AUDIT, AUDIT-C and AUDIT-3

Binge (heavy episodic) drinking is common, but there is little knowledge on how this drinking pattern could be detected. This study compares three structured questionnaires among binge drinking middle-aged men. All 45-year-old men in the city of Tampere, Finland, were asked to fill in the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Based on the interview on their drinking the men were divided into non-binging moderate drinkers (n = 352), binging moderate drinkers (n = 130), non-binging heavy drinkers (n = 10) and binging heavy drinkers (n = 63). The complete AUDIT, AUDIT-C (first three AUDIT questions inquiring quantity-frequency) and AUDIT-3 (the third binging-frequency question of AUDIT) in detecting binge drinking were compared. The complete AUDIT was effective in detecting binge drinkers by a cut-off score of >or=8 or >or=7. The optimal cut-off score for AUDIT-C was >or= 6 and that for AUDIT-3 >or=2. The area under the curve (AUC) among all risky drinkers (binging moderate and binging heavy and non-binging heavy drinkers) for AUDIT was 0.824 (95% CI 0.789 - 0.859), for AUDIT-C 0.829 (95% CI 0.795 - 0.864) and for AUDIT-3 0.779 (0.739 - 0.818). The complete AUDIT and its short versions are applicable in populations where binging is the dominant drinking pattern, but the cut-off scores should be tailored to individual cultures.     

Fast screening for alcohol misuse

The Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST) has been developed from the AUDIT questionnaire. AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: guidelines for use in primary health care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization for use in very busy medical settings. One feature of the FAST is its ease and speed of administration, especially since one question identifies over 50% of patients as either alcohol misusers or not. This study further explores the sensitivity and specificity of the FAST across ages, gender, and locations using the AUDIT as the gold standard. Two other quick tests are also compared with the AUDIT and the FAST, namely the Paddington Alcohol Test and the CAGE. All tests were quicker to administer than the AUDIT with the FAST taking just 12 s on average. All tests identified drinkers who would accept a health education booklet (over 70% of those identified) or 5 min of advice (over 40%). The FAST was consistently reliable when sensitivity and specificity were tested against AUDIT as the gold standard.     

Problem drinking profiles of patients presenting to general practitioners: analysis of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores for the Auckland area

AIM: To quantify the prevalence and demography of at-risk and problematic drinkers in the population attending a random selection of general practices and to compare this with similar studies. METHOD: A study examining the uptake and utilisation of the "DRINKLESS" package to 369 New Zealand general practitioners was conducted during 1995/6. The "DRINKLESS" package was developed with the World Health Organisation collaborative study for brief intervention for at-risk alcohol consumption. The package uses the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). There were 15,670 completed AUDIT questionnaires collected during the study. These were analysed to ascertain the prevalence and demography of at-risk and problematic drinkers attending general practitioners. RESULTS: There were 16% of patients identified as having either "risky drinking" or "problematic or dependent drinking". This pattern varied according to the occupation, age and gender of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The data confirm that large numbers of patients presenting to general practitioners experience alcohol problems of varying degrees. This study also suggests that the AUDIT will have satisfactory detection rates in a primary care setting.     

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.     

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.     

Short forms of the AUDIT in a Web‐based study of young drinkers

Introduction. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is under‐studied among young drinkers, as are the contributions of individual items to total AUDIT scores, and online performance of the existing briefer versions of this instrument. Design and Methods. This study examined individual items of the AUDIT, and various combinations, including the existing briefer versions, in relation to total AUDIT scores in a Web‐based study of young drinkers. A total of 167 young people aged 16–24 years old who had consumed any alcohol within the previous 7 days were recruited by both offline and online methods. Results. Considered individually, items 3, 4, 5 and 8 were predictive of the majority of the variance in total AUDIT scores in this Web‐based study. Existing briefer versions of the AUDIT do not better predict total scores than possible alternative combinations of items, for which acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity for screening have been demonstrated. Conclusions. Short forms of the AUDIT, particularly those based only on consumption questions, require further validation study in online applications with young people.[McCambridge J, Thomas BA. Short forms of the AUDIT in a Web‐based study of young drinkers. Drug Alcohol Rev 2009;28:18–24]     

Client Attitudes Toward Alcohol Use Self-Report

Because psychiatric illnesses and problematic alcohol use frequently co-occur and heavy alcohol use can exacerbate depression and anxiety, mental health clinicians should perform alcohol-use screenings. The aim of this study was to determine if psychiatric patients would be accepting of their mental health clinician screening them for heavy alcohol use. Using a written survey, patients rated their levels of agreement with 9 statements regarding opinions about alcohol screening by their mental-health providers. They also completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-C (AUDIT-C), a screening instrument for heavy alcohol use. One hundred fifty-four patients were surveyed in 2 psychiatric outpatient clinics. Nearly 40% screened positively for heavy alcohol use on the AUDIT-C. Nearly 8 out of 10 psychiatric patients were in favor of being screened for alcohol use by either self-report or biomarkers, independent of AUDIT-C status and gender. Thus, mental health clinicians should not be deterred from alcohol screening by perceived negative attitudes from patients.     

Severity of alcohol problems and readiness to change alcohol use in primary care

Screening measures for hazardous alcohol use that are efficient and can provide clinically relevant information are essential for primary care providers (PCPs). This study examined the clinical utility of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) as predictors of readiness to change alcohol use in a primary care setting. In total, 114 veterans completed the AUDIT, readiness to change ruler, and an alcohol use disorders diagnostic interview. Two AUDIT-C scores were obtained; one administered during a primary care visit and one derived from the AUDIT. The AUDIT, both AUDIT-C scores, and number of dependence symptoms significantly predicted readiness to change independent of demographic variables. The AUDIT accounted for the greatest percentage of variance in readiness to change (19%). The AUDIT provides information about alcohol severity and readiness to change, which could be clinically useful for providers identifying patients for brief alcohol interventions.     

Predictive Utility of Brief Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Antiretroviral Medication Nonadherence

ABSTRACT

Alcohol use negatively affects adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART), thus human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) care providers need accurate, efficient assessments of alcohol use. Using existing data from an efficacy trial of 2 cognitive-behavioral ART adherence interventions, the authors sought to determine if results on 2 common alcohol screening tests (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption [AUDIT-C] and its binge-related question [AUDIT-3]) predict ART nonadherence. Twenty-seven percent of the sample (n = 308) were positive on the AUDIT-C and 34% were positive on the AUDIT-3. In multivariate analyses, AUDIT-C–positive status predicted ART nonadherence after controlling for race, age, conscientiousness, and self-efficacy (P = .036). Although AUDIT-3–positive status was associated with ART nonadherence in unadjusted analyses, this relationship was not maintained in the final multivariate model. The AUDIT-C shows potential as an indirect screening tool for both at-risk drinking and ART nonadherence, underscoring the relationship between alcohol and chronic disease management.     

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.     

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]     

Hazardous alcohol consumption and other barriers to antiviral treatment among hepatitis C positive people receiving opioid maintenance treatment

Amongst people on opioid maintenance treatment (OMT), chronic hepatitis C (HCV) is common but infrequently treated. Numerous barriers, including misuse of alcohol may limit efforts at anti-viral treatment. The aim of this study was to define barriers, including alcohol misuse, to the effective treatment of HCV amongst OMT recipients. Ninety-four OMT patients completed the 3-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C). A semi-structured interview was used in 53 subjects to assess alcohol use in detail, psychological health, discrimination and access to HCV treatment. Feasibility of brief intervention for alcohol misuse was assessed. Of the screening participants, 73% reported they were HCV positive. Of the detailed interview participants, 26% reported no drinking in the past month, but 53% scored 8 or more on AUDIT and 42% exceeded NHMRC drinking guidelines. Twenty subjects received brief intervention and among 17 re-interviewed at one month, alcohol consumption fell by 3.1 g/day (p = 0.003). Severe or extremely severe depression, stress and anxiety were found in 57%, 51% and 40% of interviewees respectively. Episodic heavy drinking, mental health problems, perceived discrimination, limited knowledge concerning HCV were all common and uptake of HCV treatment was poor. Brief intervention for alcohol use problems was acceptable to OMT patients, and warrants further study. [Watson B, Conigrave KM, Wallace C, Whitfield JB, Wurst F, Haber PS. Hazardous alcohol consumption and other barriers to antiviral treatment among hepatitis C positive people receiving opioid maintenance treatment. Drug Alcohol Rev 2007;26:]     

Alcohol use and HIV risk taking among Chinese MSM in Beijing

Background

Few studies have used standardized alcohol use measures among men who have sex with men in China.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among MSM in Beijing. A computer-assisted self-administered questionnaire was used to collect demographics, risk behaviors the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). AUDIT uses a cutoff score of ≥8 while AUDIT C uses a score of ≥4 to classify respondents as problem drinkers. Both include a binge drinking measure.

Results

A total of 500 participants were recruited using respondent-driven sampling. HIV and prevalence is estimated to be 6.1% (95% CI 3.7, 9.2). Almost half of MSM (42.1%, 95% CI 35.8, 49.0) never had a drink containing alcohol in the past year. 5.0% (95% CI 3.1, 7.0) and 8.8% (95% CI 6.1, 11.6) had AUDIT score ≥8 and AUDIT-C score ≥4, respectively. Binge drinking was at 11.8% (95% CI 7.9, 16.0). In multivariate models all measures were associated with alcohol during sex, while AUDIT was associated with high level of attitudes and perceptions on safe sex (AOR 0.9, 95% CI 0.9,1.0), AUDIT-C with being older (AOR 3.5, 95%CI 1.4, 8.8), and HIV status (AOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4, 10.9), and binge drinking with number of male partners (AOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0, 3.9) and ever having had an HIV test (AOR 1.0, 95%CI 0.9, 1.0). Compared to AUDIT ≥8, AUDIT-C ≥4 and binge drinking were more suitable in identifying HIV risks related to problem drinking.

Conclusions

Findings suggest AUDIT is appropriate for use among MSM in China and reinforces the need for incorporating problem drinking as part of approaches to prevent HIV infection among Chinese MSM.