Mei-Ling Blank1, Jennie Connor1, Andrew Gray1, Karen Tustin2,3. 1. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 3. National Centre for Lifecourse Research, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Abbreviated versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) instrument have not been investigated among students. We compared a modified second item (AUDIT-2*) (typical quantity per occasion as the number of drinks, rather than categorical responses) and the third item (AUDIT-3) (heavy episodic drinking frequency) with AUDIT-C scores and described their associations with sociodemographic variables. DESIGN AND METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional data from the 2011 baseline of the Graduate Longitudinal Study New Zealand, including respondents aged up to 25 years (n = 5082, response rate 65%). Hazardous drinking was defined as an AUDIT-C score of seven or greater for men and five or greater for women. We calculated the area under receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for the AUDIT-2* and AUDIT-3. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to describe the associations between drinking patterns and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Based on the sex-specific AUDIT-C cut-points, 36% of participants reported drinking at hazardous levels. For the AUDIT-2*, the best combination of sensitivity and specificity was obtained for a cut-point of five standard drinks. The best cut-point for the AUDIT-3 was for monthly heavy episodic drinking. Positive and negative predictive values were above 0.80 for both cut-points. Consumption was associated with age, degree level, domestic/international status, accommodation type, relationship status and employment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT-2* and the AUDIT-3 appear to be promising standalone screening items for detecting hazardous drinking in this population of heavy-drinking students. [Blank M-L, Connor J, Gray A, Tustin K. Screening for hazardous alcohol use among university students using individual questions from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015;34:540-8].
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Abbreviated versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) instrument have not been investigated among students. We compared a modified second item (AUDIT-2*) (typical quantity per occasion as the number of drinks, rather than categorical responses) and the third item (AUDIT-3) (heavy episodic drinking frequency) with AUDIT-C scores and described their associations with sociodemographic variables. DESIGN AND METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional data from the 2011 baseline of the Graduate Longitudinal Study New Zealand, including respondents aged up to 25 years (n = 5082, response rate 65%). Hazardous drinking was defined as an AUDIT-C score of seven or greater for men and five or greater for women. We calculated the area under receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for the AUDIT-2* and AUDIT-3. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to describe the associations between drinking patterns and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Based on the sex-specific AUDIT-C cut-points, 36% of participants reported drinking at hazardous levels. For the AUDIT-2*, the best combination of sensitivity and specificity was obtained for a cut-point of five standard drinks. The best cut-point for the AUDIT-3 was for monthly heavy episodic drinking. Positive and negative predictive values were above 0.80 for both cut-points. Consumption was associated with age, degree level, domestic/international status, accommodation type, relationship status and employment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT-2* and the AUDIT-3 appear to be promising standalone screening items for detecting hazardous drinking in this population of heavy-drinking students. [Blank M-L, Connor J, Gray A, Tustin K. Screening for hazardous alcohol use among university students using individual questions from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015;34:540-8].
Authors: Laura E Gibbons; Rob Fredericksen; Joseph O Merrill; Mary E McCaul; Geetanjali Chander; Heidi Hutton; William B Lober; W Chris Mathews; Kenneth Mayer; Greer Burkholder; James H Willig; Michael J Mugavero; Michael S Saag; Mari M Kitahata; Todd C Edwards; Donald L Patrick; Heidi M Crane; Paul K Crane Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: J Hazart; M Blanquet; A Debost-Legrand; A Perreve; S Leger; V Martoia; S Maurice; G Brousse; L Gerbaud Journal: J Prev Med Hyg Date: 2018-03-30