U Hermansson1, A Helander, A Huss, L Brandt, S Rönnberg. 1. Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Alcohol and Drug Dependence Disorders at Karolinska Hospital, Sweden. ulric@bahnhof.se
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Sonja Kilo; Birgit Hofmann; Elisabeth Eckert; Thomas Göen; Hans Drexler Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2016-07-09 Impact factor: 3.015