PURPOSE: We wanted to compare 2 screening instruments for problem drinking, the CAGE and a single question, assessing frequency of use, patient and clinician comfort, and patient engagement in change. METHODS: The study was a crossover, cluster-randomized clinical trial with 31 clinicians in Missouri and 13 in the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) National Network for Family Practice and Primary Care Research; 2,800 patients provided data. The clinician was the unit of randomization. Clinicians decided whether to screen each patient; if they chose to screen, they used the screening approach assigned for that block of patients. The clinician and patient separately completed questionnaires immediately after the office visit to assess each one's comfort with screening (and any ensuing discussion) and the patient's engagement in change. RESULTS: Missouri clinicians screened more patients when assigned the single question (81%) than the CAGE (69%, P = .001 in weighted analysis). There was no difference among AAFP network clinicians (96% of patients screened with the CAGE, 97% with the single question). Eighty percent to 90% of clinicians and 70% of patients reported being comfortable with screening and the ensuing discussion, with no difference between approaches in either network. About one third of patients who were identified as problem drinkers reported thinking about or planning to change their drinking behavior, with no difference in engagement between screening approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients reported similar comfort with the CAGE questions and the single-question screening tools for problem drinking, and the 2 instruments were equal in their ability to engage the patient. In Missouri, the single question was more likely to be used.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We wanted to compare 2 screening instruments for problem drinking, the CAGE and a single question, assessing frequency of use, patient and clinician comfort, and patient engagement in change. METHODS: The study was a crossover, cluster-randomized clinical trial with 31 clinicians in Missouri and 13 in the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) National Network for Family Practice and Primary Care Research; 2,800 patients provided data. The clinician was the unit of randomization. Clinicians decided whether to screen each patient; if they chose to screen, they used the screening approach assigned for that block of patients. The clinician and patient separately completed questionnaires immediately after the office visit to assess each one's comfort with screening (and any ensuing discussion) and the patient's engagement in change. RESULTS: Missouri clinicians screened more patients when assigned the single question (81%) than the CAGE (69%, P = .001 in weighted analysis). There was no difference among AAFP network clinicians (96% of patients screened with the CAGE, 97% with the single question). Eighty percent to 90% of clinicians and 70% of patients reported being comfortable with screening and the ensuing discussion, with no difference between approaches in either network. About one third of patients who were identified as problem drinkers reported thinking about or planning to change their drinking behavior, with no difference in engagement between screening approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients reported similar comfort with the CAGE questions and the single-question screening tools for problem drinking, and the 2 instruments were equal in their ability to engage the patient. In Missouri, the single question was more likely to be used.
Authors: Michael F Fleming; Marlon P Mundt; Michael T French; Linda Baier Manwell; Ellyn A Stauffacher; Kristen Lawton Barry Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Kathleen Ell; Bin Xie; Brenda Quon; David I Quinn; Megan Dwight-Johnson; Pey-Jiuan Lee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Deirdre A Shires; Kurt C Stange; George Divine; Scott Ratliff; Ronak Vashi; Ming Tai-Seale; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Michelle D Hamilton; Philip A Cola; Joshua J Terchek; James J Werner; Kurt C Stange Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2011 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: John M Westfall; Linda Zittleman; Elizabeth W Staton; Bennett Parnes; Peter C Smith; Linda J Niebauer; Douglas H Fernald; Javan Quintela; Rebecca F Van Vorst; L Miriam Dickinson; Wilson D Pace Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Benjamin H K Yip; Roger Y Chung; Vincent C H Chung; Jean Kim; Iris W T Chan; Martin C S Wong; Samuel Y S Wong; Sian M Griffiths Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240