Richard Saitz1, Debbie M Cheng2, Donald Allensworth-Davies3, Michael R Winter4, Peter C Smith5. 1. Clinical Addiction Research and Education (CARE) Unit, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Clinical Addiction Research and Education (CARE) Unit, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. School of Health Sciences, College of Sciences and Health Professions, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Data Coordinating Center, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Single screening questions (SSQs) are recommended for the evaluation of unhealthy alcohol use and other drug use (risky use through dependence). In addition, SSQs could provide information on severity that is necessary for brief intervention, information thought to be available only from longer questionnaires. We assessed SSQ accuracy for identifying dependence. METHOD: In a cross-sectional study, 286 primary care patients were administered SSQs for alcohol and for other drugs (each asks how many times they were used in the past year), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C), the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST), and a diagnostic interview reference standard for dependence. For each test, we calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the ability to discriminate dependence at an optimal cutoff. RESULTS: The prevalence of alcohol and other drug dependence was 9% and 12%, respectively. Optimal cut points were eight or more times for the alcohol SSQ, a score of three or more for AUDIT-C, three or more times for the other drug SSQ, and a score of four or more for the DAST. The areas under the ROC curve ranged from 0.87 to 0.96. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios at optimal cut points for the alcohol SSQ were 88%, 84%, 5.6, and 0.1, respectively; for the other drug SSQ were 97%, 79%, 4.6, 0.04, respectively; for the AUDIT-C were 92%, 71%, 3.2, 0.1, respectively; and for the DAST were 100%, 84%, 6.3, 0, respectively. Alcohol SSQ and AUDIT-C positive likelihood ratio 95% confidence intervals did not overlap. CONCLUSIONS: SSQs can identify substance dependence as well as and sometimes better than longer screening tools. SSQs may be useful for both screening and preliminary assessment, thus overcoming a barrier (seen with lengthy questionnaires) to dissemination of screening and brief intervention in primary care settings.
OBJECTIVE: Single screening questions (SSQs) are recommended for the evaluation of unhealthy alcohol use and other drug use (risky use through dependence). In addition, SSQs could provide information on severity that is necessary for brief intervention, information thought to be available only from longer questionnaires. We assessed SSQ accuracy for identifying dependence. METHOD: In a cross-sectional study, 286 primary care patients were administered SSQs for alcohol and for other drugs (each asks how many times they were used in the past year), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C), the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST), and a diagnostic interview reference standard for dependence. For each test, we calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the ability to discriminate dependence at an optimal cutoff. RESULTS: The prevalence of alcohol and other drug dependence was 9% and 12%, respectively. Optimal cut points were eight or more times for the alcoholSSQ, a score of three or more for AUDIT-C, three or more times for the other drug SSQ, and a score of four or more for the DAST. The areas under the ROC curve ranged from 0.87 to 0.96. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios at optimal cut points for the alcoholSSQ were 88%, 84%, 5.6, and 0.1, respectively; for the other drug SSQ were 97%, 79%, 4.6, 0.04, respectively; for the AUDIT-C were 92%, 71%, 3.2, 0.1, respectively; and for the DAST were 100%, 84%, 6.3, 0, respectively. AlcoholSSQ and AUDIT-C positive likelihood ratio 95% confidence intervals did not overlap. CONCLUSIONS:SSQs can identify substance dependence as well as and sometimes better than longer screening tools. SSQs may be useful for both screening and preliminary assessment, thus overcoming a barrier (seen with lengthy questionnaires) to dissemination of screening and brief intervention in primary care settings.
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Jamie Abelson; Olga Demler; Javier I Escobar; Miriam Gibbon; Margaret E Guyer; Mary J Howes; Robert Jin; William A Vega; Ellen E Walters; Philip Wang; Alan Zaslavsky; Hui Zheng Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2004 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Judith Bernstein; Debbie M Cheng; Na Wang; Caitlin Trilla; Jeffrey Samet; Richard Saitz Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Aleksandra Zgierska; Iliya Paul Amaza; Richard L Brown; Marlon Mundt; Michael F Fleming Journal: J Fam Pract Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 0.493
Authors: Michael J Silverberg; Tory Levine-Hall; Nicole Hood; Alexandra N Anderson; Stacey E Alexeeff; Jennifer O Lam; Sally B Slome; Jason A Flamm; Charles Bradley Hare; Thekla Ross; Amy C Justice; Jonathan A C Sterne; Andrew E Williams; Kendall J Bryant; Constance M Weisner; Michael A Horberg; Stacy A Sterling; Derek D Satre Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Jennifer McNeely; Li-Tzy Wu; Geetha A Subramaniam; Dace S Svikis; Lauretta A Cathers; Gaurav Sharma; Jacqueline King; Eve Jelstrom; Courtney D Nordeck; Anjalee Sharma; Shannon G Mitchell; Kevin E O'Grady; Robert P Schwartz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer McNeely; Charles M Cleland; Shiela M Strauss; Joseph J Palamar; John Rotrosen; Richard Saitz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mikko Sayre; Gwen T Lapham; Amy K Lee; Malia Oliver; Jennifer F Bobb; Ryan M Caldeiro; Katharine A Bradley Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jason Paltzer; Richard L Brown; Marguerite Burns; D Paul Moberg; John Mullahy; Ajay K Sethi; David Weimer Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.505