Dataset Information

Inconsistencies between alcohol screening results based on AUDIT-C scores and reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions: prevalence in two US national samples.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The AUDIT-C is an extensively validated screen for unhealthy alcohol use (i.e. drinking above recommended limits or alcohol use disorder), which consists of three questions about alcohol consumption. AUDIT-C scores ?4 points for men and ?3 for women are considered positive screens based on US validation studies that compared the AUDIT-C to "gold standard" measures of unhealthy alcohol use from independent, detailed interviews. However, results of screening--positive or negative based on AUDIT-C scores--can be inconsistent with reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions. For example, individuals can screen positive based on the AUDIT-C score while reporting drinking below US recommended limits on the same AUDIT-C. Alternatively, they can screen negative based on the AUDIT-C score while reporting drinking above US recommended limits. Such inconsistencies could complicate interpretation of screening results, but it is unclear how often they occur in practice.

Methods

This study used AUDIT-C data from respondents who reported past-year drinking on one of two national US surveys: a general population survey (N?=?26,610) and a Veterans Health Administration (VA) outpatient survey (N?=?467,416). Gender-stratified analyses estimated the prevalence of AUDIT-C screen results--positive or negative screens based on the AUDIT-C score--that were inconsistent with reported drinking (above or below US recommended limits) on the same AUDIT-C.

Results

Among men who reported drinking, 13.8% and 21.1% of US general population and VA samples, respectively, had screening results based on AUDIT-C scores (positive or negative) that were inconsistent with reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions (above or below US recommended limits). Among women who reported drinking, 18.3% and 20.7% of US general population and VA samples, respectively, had screening results that were inconsistent with reported drinking.

Limitations

This study did not include an independent interview gold standard for unhealthy alcohol use and therefore cannot address how often observed inconsistencies represent false positive or negative screens.

Conclusions

Up to 21% of people who drink alcohol had alcohol screening results based on the AUDIT-C score that were inconsistent with reported drinking on the same AUDIT-C. This needs to be addressed when training clinicians to use the AUDIT-C.

SUBMITTER: Delaney KE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3946205 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inconsistencies between alcohol screening results based on AUDIT-C scores and reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions: prevalence in two US national samples.

Delaney Kate E KE Lee Amy K AK Lapham Gwen T GT Rubinsky Anna D AD Chavez Laura J LJ Bradley Katharine A KA

Addiction science & clinical practice 20140127

<h4>Background</h4>The AUDIT-C is an extensively validated screen for unhealthy alcohol use (i.e. drinking above recommended limits or alcohol use disorder), which consists of three questions about alcohol consumption. AUDIT-C scores ≥4 points for men and ≥3 for women are considered positive screens based on US validation studies that compared the AUDIT-C to "gold standard" measures of unhealthy alcohol use from independent, detailed interviews. However, results of screening--positive or negativ ...[more]

PMID: 24468406

Similar Datasets

Project description:Several psychometrically sound measures of alcohol use have been developed to assess drinking. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and its shorter counterpart the AUDIT-C, which contains the first 3 AUDIT questions, were developed by the World Health Organization and have become the preferred brief measures for screening and evaluating problem severity. This study compared the first 3 questions on the AUDIT with another psychometrically sound brief measure of alcohol use, the Quick Drinking Screen (QDS).Data were obtained from a randomized controlled trial of a mail-based intervention promoting self-change with 472 alcohol abusers (n = 280, no prior alcohol treatment; n = 192, prior alcohol treatment). Participants' retrospective self-reports of alcohol consumption were collected using the QDS and the 3 AUDIT-C questions and compared. Although both measures contain similar questions (2 quantity-frequency and 1 binge drinking), they differ in 2 important ways: (i) temporal interval over which data are collected, and (ii) formatting of response options (i.e., a continuous number vs. categorical).Intraclass correlations for drinking variables were moderate to moderately high. A repeated-measures MANOVA using treatment condition and gender as variables revealed significant differences in absolute values between the 2 drinking measures with the QDS showing greater consumption on almost all variables. Participants' numerical answers on the QDS were compared to their categorical answers to the similar alcohol use questions on the AUDIT-C. The comparison revealed that participants' answers on the AUDIT-C were associated with extreme variability compared to their QDS answers. This variability suggests the AUDIT-C would be unreliable as a quantitative measure of alcohol consumption.The differences between the 3 alcohol use questions on the AUDIT-C and the same questions on the QDS may reflect the imprecision of the AUDIT-C's drinking response categories. Results suggest that the QDS can be used to identify risky drinking and to provide a more informative characterization of a drinker's alcohol consumption than that provided by the AUDIT-C.

Project description:BackgroundHeavy episodic drinking (HED) is a risk factor for opioid-related overdose and negatively impacts HIV disease progression. Among a national cohort of patients with HIV (PWH), we examined sociodemographic and clinical correlates of concomitant HED and self-reported opioid use.MethodsWe used data collected from 2002 through 2018 from the Veterans Aging Cohort Study, a prospective cohort including PWH in care at eight US Veterans Health Administration sites. HED was defined as consuming six or more drinks at least once in the year prior to survey collection. We examined the relationship between HED and self-reported opioid use and created a 4-level composite variable of HED and opioid use. We used multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds of reporting concomitant HED and self-reported opioid use.ResultsAmong 3702 PWH, 1458 (39.4%) reported HED during the study period and 350 (9.5%) reported opioid use. In the multinomial model, compared to reporting neither HED nor opioid use, lifetime housing instability (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 2.35), Veterans Aging Cohort Study Index 2.0 (a measure of disease severity; aOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28), depressive symptoms (aOR 2.27, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.62), past-year cigarette smoking (aOR 3.06, 95% CI 1.53 to 6.14), cannabis use (aOR 1.69, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.62), and cocaine/stimulant use (aOR 11.54, 95% CI 7.40 to 17.99) were independently associated with greater odds of concomitant HED and self-reported opioid use. Compared to having attended no college, having some college or more (aOR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.59) was associated with lower odds of concomitant HED and self-reported opioid use.ConclusionsAmong PWH, concomitant HED and self-reported opioid use are more common among individuals with depressive symptoms and substance use, structural vulnerabilities, and greater illness severity. Efforts to minimize opioid-related risk should address high-risk drinking as a modifiable risk factor for harm among these groups.

Project description:Micronutrient deficiencies result in a broad range of adverse health and functional consequences, but the true prevalence of specific deficiencies remains uncertain because limited information is available from nationally representative surveys using recommended biomarkers. The present review compares various reported national deficiency prevalence estimates for nutrients and years where the estimates overlap for individual countries that conducted nationally representative surveys and explores possible reasons for any discrepancies discovered. Nationally representative micronutrient status surveys that were conducted since 2000 among preschool-aged children or women of reproductive age and included assessment of iron, vitamin A, or zinc status based on recognized biomarkers were considered eligible for inclusion, along with any modeled deficiency prevalence estimates for these same countries and years. There was considerable variation across different published prevalence estimates, with larger inconsistencies when the prevalence estimate was based on proxies, such as hemoglobin for iron deficiency and dietary zinc availability for zinc deficiency. Numerous additional methodological issues affected the prevalence estimates, such as which biomarker and what cutoff was used to define deficiency, whether the biomarker was adjusted for inflammation, and what adjustment method was used. For some country-years, the various approaches resulted in fairly consistent prevalence estimates. For other country-years, however, the results differed markedly and changed the conclusions regarding the existence and severity of the micronutrient deficiency as a public health concern. In conclusion, to determine micronutrient status, we consider the assessment of one of the recommended biomarkers in a population representative survey as the best available information. If indicated, results should be adjusted for inflammation and generally acceptable cutoffs should be applied to facilitate comparisons, although individual countries may also apply nationally defined cutoffs to determine when and where to intervene. Global consensus is needed on best practices for presenting survey results and defining the prevalence of deficiency.

Project description:The English Department of Health introduced universal MRSA screening of admissions to English hospitals in 2010. It commissioned a national audit to review implementation, impact on patient management, admission prevalence and extra yield of MRSA identified compared to "high-risk" specialty or "checklist-activated" screening (CLAS) of patients with MRSA risk factors.National audit May 2011. Questionnaires to infection control teams in all English NHS acute trusts, requesting number patients admitted and screened, new or previously known MRSA; MRSA point prevalence; screening and isolation policies; individual risk factors and patient management for all new MRSA patients and random sample of negatives.144/167 (86.2%) trusts responded. Individual patient data for 760 new MRSA patients and 951 negatives. 61% of emergency admissions (median 67.3%), 81% (median 59.4%) electives and 47% (median 41.4%) day-cases were screened. MRSA admission prevalence: 1% (median 0.9%) emergencies, 0.6% (median 0.4%) electives, 0.4% (median 0%) day-cases. Approximately 50% all MRSA identified was new. Inpatient MRSA point prevalence: 3.3% (median 2.9%). 104 (77%) trusts pre-emptively isolated patients with previous MRSA, 63 (35%) pre-emptively isolated admissions to "high-risk" specialties; 7 (5%) used PCR routinely. Mean time to MRSA positive result: 2.87 days (±1.33); 37% (219/596) newly identified MRSA patients discharged before result available; 55% remainder (205/376) isolated post-result. In an average trust, CLAS would reduce screening by 50%, identifying 81% of all MRSA. "High risk" specialty screening would reduce screening by 89%, identifying 9% of MRSA.Implementation of universal screening was poor. Admission prevalence (new cases) was low. CLAS reduced screening effort for minor decreases in identification, but implementation may prove difficult. Cost effectiveness of this and other policies, awaits evaluation by transmission dynamic economic modelling, using data from this audit. Until then trusts should seek to improve implementation of current policy and use of isolation facilities.

Dataset Information

Inconsistencies between alcohol screening results based on AUDIT-C scores and reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions: prevalence in two US national samples.

Background

Methods

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Publications

Inconsistencies between alcohol screening results based on AUDIT-C scores and reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions: prevalence in two US national samples.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets