AIMS: To assess the accuracy and performance of AUDIT in detecting alcohol problems, as defined by ICD-10 and DSM-IV, in a rural district in Vietnam. METHODS: The study was conducted in a rural district of Vietnam. Five hundred men and women aged 18-60 were randomly selected for interview with AUDIT and CIDI 2.1. The ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for harmful use/alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence were used to evaluate AUDIT. RESULTS: Due to few cases of alcohol problems observed among women (1/282), we could only evaluate the validity of AUDIT in men. At cut-off point 7/8, AUDIT had a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 76.1% for detecting at-risk drinking. At this cut-off point, using ICD-10 criteria, the sensitivity was 100% for harmful use and 93.8% for alcohol dependence; the specificity was 69.9% for harmful use and 87.4% for alcohol dependence. The area under the ROC curve was 0.91 (0.84-0.98) for harmful use and 0.84 (0.74-0.94) for alcohol dependence (ICD-10). The agreement between ICD-10 and DSM-IV was higher for diagnosing alcohol dependence than alcohol abuse (Kappa coefficient: 0.98 vs 0.68). CONCLUSION: We confirmed that AUDIT is feasible to use in a rural community in a developing country. Different cut-off points are appropriate for different purposes, but for general population screening of at-risk drinking we found a cut-off point 7/8 to be optimal.
AIMS: To assess the accuracy and performance of AUDIT in detecting alcohol problems, as defined by ICD-10 and DSM-IV, in a rural district in Vietnam. METHODS: The study was conducted in a rural district of Vietnam. Five hundred men and women aged 18-60 were randomly selected for interview with AUDIT and CIDI 2.1. The ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for harmful use/alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence were used to evaluate AUDIT. RESULTS: Due to few cases of alcohol problems observed among women (1/282), we could only evaluate the validity of AUDIT in men. At cut-off point 7/8, AUDIT had a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 76.1% for detecting at-risk drinking. At this cut-off point, using ICD-10 criteria, the sensitivity was 100% for harmful use and 93.8% for alcohol dependence; the specificity was 69.9% for harmful use and 87.4% for alcohol dependence. The area under the ROC curve was 0.91 (0.84-0.98) for harmful use and 0.84 (0.74-0.94) for alcohol dependence (ICD-10). The agreement between ICD-10 and DSM-IV was higher for diagnosing alcohol dependence than alcohol abuse (Kappa coefficient: 0.98 vs 0.68). CONCLUSION: We confirmed that AUDIT is feasible to use in a rural community in a developing country. Different cut-off points are appropriate for different purposes, but for general population screening of at-risk drinking we found a cut-off point 7/8 to be optimal.
Authors: Rebecca B Hershow; Diana S Zuskov; Nguyen Vu Tuyet Mai; Geetanjali Chander; Heidi E Hutton; Carl Latkin; Nguyen Duc Vuong; Teerada Sripaipan; Kathryn E Lancaster; Tran Viet Ha; Vivian F Go Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Rebecca B Hershow; Nisha C Gottfredson; Tran Viet Ha; Viet Anh Chu; Kathryn E Lancaster; Vu M Quan; Sara N Levintow; Teerada Sripaipan; Bradley N Gaynes; Brian W Pence; Vivian F Go Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Kathryn E Lancaster; Angela Hetrick; Teerada Sripaipan; Tran Viet Ha; Heidi E Hutton; Geetanjali Chander; Carl A Latkin; David Dowdy; Constantine Frangakis; Bui Xuan Quynh; Vivian F Go Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 3.240