Andrea Canagasaby1, Daniel C Vinson. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia, MO 65212, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To address the accuracy of quantity-frequency (QF) questions in screening for hazardous or harmful drinking. METHODS: Three groups were interviewed: patients presenting to emergency departments for care of an acute injury (n = 1537) or a medical illness (n = 1151), and community controls interviewed by telephone (n = 1112). The first question about alcohol was a single alcohol screening question (SASQ), 'When was the last time you had more than X drinks in one day?', where X = 4 for women and 5 for men, with any time in the past 3 months considered a positive screen (1 drink = 14 g ethanol). The subsequent alcohol questions were a calendar-based review of recent drinking and the alcohol questions from the diagnostic interview schedule (DIS), which included questions about usual frequency and average quantity. Hazardous drinking was defined as drinking >4 drinks in 1 day or >14 drinks in 1 week for men (women 3 and 7) (Guidelines of the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism). Current alcohol use disorders were defined using DSM-IV criteria. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in identifying hazardous drinking or current alcohol use disorder were compared. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curves in the three samples combined were 0.81 for SASQ (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.82), 0.80 for a question about average quantity alone (0.79-0.82) and 0.85 for the product of usual frequency times average quantity (0.84-0.86). The QF product and the question about average quantity performed consistently across the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical settings, one way to put these findings into practice is to screen first with a single question, such as the SASQ, a single question about typical quantity, or a question about the frequency of heavy drinking such as the third item of the alcohol use disorders test (AUDIT).
AIMS: To address the accuracy of quantity-frequency (QF) questions in screening for hazardous or harmful drinking. METHODS: Three groups were interviewed: patients presenting to emergency departments for care of an acute injury (n = 1537) or a medical illness (n = 1151), and community controls interviewed by telephone (n = 1112). The first question about alcohol was a single alcohol screening question (SASQ), 'When was the last time you had more than X drinks in one day?', where X = 4 for women and 5 for men, with any time in the past 3 months considered a positive screen (1 drink = 14 g ethanol). The subsequent alcohol questions were a calendar-based review of recent drinking and the alcohol questions from the diagnostic interview schedule (DIS), which included questions about usual frequency and average quantity. Hazardous drinking was defined as drinking >4 drinks in 1 day or >14 drinks in 1 week for men (women 3 and 7) (Guidelines of the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism). Current alcohol use disorders were defined using DSM-IV criteria. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in identifying hazardous drinking or current alcohol use disorder were compared. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curves in the three samples combined were 0.81 for SASQ (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.82), 0.80 for a question about average quantity alone (0.79-0.82) and 0.85 for the product of usual frequency times average quantity (0.84-0.86). The QF product and the question about average quantity performed consistently across the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical settings, one way to put these findings into practice is to screen first with a single question, such as the SASQ, a single question about typical quantity, or a question about the frequency of heavy drinking such as the third item of the alcohol use disorders test (AUDIT).
Authors: Adam J Gordon; Lynn E Sullivan; Daniel P Alford; Julia H Arnsten; Marc N Gourevitch; Stefan G Kertesz; Hillary V Kunins; Joseph O Merrill; Jeffrey H Samet; David A Fiellin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lauren Matukaitis Broyles; Adam J Gordon; Susan M Sereika; Christopher M Ryan; Judith A Erlen Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Eileen Kaner; Martin Bland; Paul Cassidy; Simon Coulton; Paolo Deluca; Colin Drummond; Eilish Gilvarry; Christine Godfrey; Nick Heather; Judy Myles; Dorothy Newbury-Birch; Adenekan Oyefeso; Steve Parrott; Katherine Perryman; Tom Phillips; Don Shenker; Jonathan Shepherd Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-08-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Julie R Bromberg; Anthony Spirito; Thomas Chun; Michael J Mello; T Charles Casper; Fahd Ahmad; Lalit Bajaj; Kathleen M Brown; Lauren S Chernick; Daniel M Cohen; Joel Fein; Tim Horeczko; Michael N Levas; Brett McAninch; Michael Monuteaux; Colette C Mull; Jackie Grupp-Phelan; Elizabeth C Powell; Alexander Rogers; Rohit P Shenoi; Brian Suffoletto; Cheryl Vance; James G Linakis Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Dorothy Newbury-Birch; Martin Bland; Paul Cassidy; Simon Coulton; Paolo Deluca; Colin Drummond; Eilish Gilvarry; Christine Godfrey; Nick Heather; Eileen Kaner; Judy Myles; Adenekan Oyefeso; Steve Parrott; Katherine Perryman; Tom Phillips; Don Shenker; Jonathan Shepherd Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Simon Coulton; Katherine Perryman; Martin Bland; Paul Cassidy; Mike Crawford; Paolo Deluca; Colin Drummond; Eilish Gilvarry; Christine Godfrey; Nick Heather; Eileen Kaner; Judy Myles; Dorothy Newbury-Birch; Adenekan Oyefeso; Steve Parrott; Tom Phillips; Don Shenker; Jonathan Shepherd Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 2.655