Article

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.

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité University Medicine, Campus Mitte, Schumannstrasse 20/21, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research (Impact Factor: 3.42). 11/2004; 28(11):1693-701. DOI: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000145696.58084.08
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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.
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.
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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
84 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2005 the American College of Surgeons passed a mandate requiring that Level I trauma centers have mechanisms to identify and intervene with problem drinkers. The aim of this investigation was to determine if a multilevel trauma center intervention targeting both providers and patients would lead to higher quality alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) when compared with trauma center mandate compliance without implementation enhancements. Cluster randomized trial in which intervention site (site n =10, patient n =409) providers received 1-day workshop training on evidence-based motivational interviewing (MI) alcohol interventions and four 30-minute feedback and coaching sessions; control sites (site n =10, patient n =469) implemented the mandate without study team training enhancements. Trauma centers in the United States of America. 878 blood alcohol positive inpatients with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI). MI skills of providers were assessed with fidelity coded standardized patient interviews. All patients were interviewed at baseline, and 6- and 12-months post-injury with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Intervention site providers consistently demonstrated enhanced MI skills compared with control providers. Intervention patients demonstrated an 8% reduction in AUDIT hazardous drinking relative to controls over the course of the year after injury (RR =0.88, 95%, CI =0.79, 0.98). Intervention patients were more likely to demonstrate improvements in alcohol use problems in the absence of TBI (p =0.002). Trauma center providers can be trained to deliver higher quality alcohol screening and brief intervention than untrained providers, which is associated with modest reductions in alcohol use problems, particularly among patients without traumatic brain injury. Key Words: Alcohol, Screening and Brief Intervention, Traumatic Injury, American College of Surgeons, Policy Mandate, Motivational Interviewing, Dissemination and Implementation Research.
    Addiction 01/2014; · 4.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Alcohol use is an important contributor to injuries. Simple bedside tools to identify trauma patients with potentially harmful drinking may assist in brief intervention efforts in clinical practice. The objective of the study was to determine and compare the accuracy of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and an abbreviated version of this test, in the detection of hazardous drinking. Methods A cross sectional study of a convenience sample of admitted trauma patients at a single Australian major trauma centre. Eligible patients completed the AUDIT. AUDIT survey responses were scored in two ways, using the full form scale and secondly an abbreviated (AUDIT C) scale which uses only the first 3 questions. AUDIT and AUDIT-C scores were then evaluated with respect to the primary study measure; the detection of hazardous alcohol consumption based on a full alcohol consumption history. Sensitivities for each relevant score were calculated and Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine test accuracy. Results During the study period, 523 trauma admissions were identified and of these 146 (28%) were screened. The optimum cut off scores for AUDIT and AUDIT-C were 8 and 5 respectively corresponding to sensitivities of 88% and 91% and both tests had excellent overall accuracy for the detection of hazardous alcohol consumption. There was no significant difference between AUDIT-C and AUDIT performance (p = 0.395) (AUDIT-C AUROC 0.96 95%CI 0.93, 0.99). Conclusion AUDIT-C appears to be a potentially useful screening tool for use trauma centres, but that further research with larger samples is required.
    Injury 01/2014; · 2.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The time required to conduct drug and alcohol screening has been a major barrier to its implementation in mainstream healthcare settings. Because patient self-administered tools are potentially more efficient, we translated the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) into an audio guided computer assisted self interview (ACASI) format. This study reports on the test-retest reliability of the ACASI ASSIST in an adult primary care population. Adult primary care patients completed the ACASI ASSIST, in English or Spanish, twice within a 1–4 week period. Among the 101 participants, there were no significant differences between test administrations in detecting moderate to high risk use for tobacco, alcohol, or any other drug class. Substance risk scores from the two administrations had excellent concordance (90-98%) and high correlation (ICC 0.90-0.97) for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. The ACASI ASSIST has good test-retest reliability, and warrants additional study to evaluate its validity for detecting unhealthy substance use.
    Journal of substance abuse treatment 01/2014; · 2.90 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
3 Downloads
Available from
Oct 13, 2014