Sanne Verhoog1,2, Jolien M Dopmeijer3,4, Jannet M de Jonge5, Claudia M van der Heijde6, Peter Vonk6, Rob H L M Bovens7, Michiel R de Boer8, Trynke Hoekstra8, Anton E Kunst1, Reinout W Wiers9, Mirte A G Kuipers1. 1. Academic Medical Center, Department of Public Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Health and Welfare, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Research Group Mental Healthcare and Society, Zwolle, The Netherlands, jm.dopmeijer@windesheim.nl. 4. Department of Psychology, Addiction Development and Psychopathology Lab, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, jm.dopmeijer@windesheim.nl. 5. Department of Health and Welfare, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Research Group Mental Healthcare and Society, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Research, Student Health Service, Development and Prevention, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Tranzo, Scientific Center for Care and Welfare, University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Health Sciences, VU University, Section Methodology and Applied Statistics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Psychology, Addiction Development and Psychopathology Lab, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hazardous drinking among students in higher education is a growing concern. The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) is the gold standard screening instrument for hazardous drinking in the adult population, for which an abbreviated version has been developed: the -AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C). Currently, there's no gold standard for identifying hazardous drinking among students in higher education and little evidence regarding the concurrent validity of the AUDIT-C as a screening instrument for this group. This study investigated the concurrent validity of the AUDIT-C in a sample of university students and suggests the most appropriate cutoff points. METHODS: Cross-sectional data of health surveys from 5,401 university and university of applied sciences in the Netherlands were used. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for different cutoff scores of AUDIT-C were calculated for the total sample and for subgroups stratified by age, gender, and educational level. AUDIT-score ≥11 was used as the criterion of hazardous and harmful drinking. RESULTS: Twenty percent of students were hazardous and harmful drinkers. The area under the ROC curve was 0.922 (95% CI 0.914-0.930). At an AUDIT-C cutoff score of ≥7, sensitivity and specificity were both >80%, while other cutoffs showed less balanced results. A cutoff of ≥8 performed better among males, but for other subgroups ≥7 was most suitable. CONCLUSION: AUDIT-C seems valid in identifying hazardous and harmful drinking students, with suggested optimal cutoffs 7 (females) or 8 (males). However, considerations regarding avoiding false-positives versus false-negatives, in relation to the type of intervention following screening, could lead to selecting different cutoffs.
BACKGROUND: Hazardous drinking among students in higher education is a growing concern. The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) is the gold standard screening instrument for hazardous drinking in the adult population, for which an abbreviated version has been developed: the -AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C). Currently, there's no gold standard for identifying hazardous drinking among students in higher education and little evidence regarding the concurrent validity of the AUDIT-C as a screening instrument for this group. This study investigated the concurrent validity of the AUDIT-C in a sample of university students and suggests the most appropriate cutoff points. METHODS: Cross-sectional data of health surveys from 5,401 university and university of applied sciences in the Netherlands were used. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for different cutoff scores of AUDIT-C were calculated for the total sample and for subgroups stratified by age, gender, and educational level. AUDIT-score ≥11 was used as the criterion of hazardous and harmful drinking. RESULTS: Twenty percent of students were hazardous and harmful drinkers. The area under the ROC curve was 0.922 (95% CI 0.914-0.930). At an AUDIT-C cutoff score of ≥7, sensitivity and specificity were both >80%, while other cutoffs showed less balanced results. A cutoff of ≥8 performed better among males, but for other subgroups ≥7 was most suitable. CONCLUSION: AUDIT-C seems valid in identifying hazardous and harmful drinking students, with suggested optimal cutoffs 7 (females) or 8 (males). However, considerations regarding avoiding false-positives versus false-negatives, in relation to the type of intervention following screening, could lead to selecting different cutoffs.
Keywords:
Alcohol use disorders identification test-consumption; Alcohol use screening; Concurrent validity; Hazardous alcohol use; University students
Authors: Robert Tholen; Edwin Wouters; Koen Ponnet; Sara De Bruyn; Guido Van Hal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Chen Du; Megan Chong Hueh Zan; Min Jung Cho; Jenifer I Fenton; Pao Ying Hsiao; Richard Hsiao; Laura Keaver; Chang-Chi Lai; HeeSoon Lee; Mary-Jon Ludy; Wan Shen; Winnie Chee Siew Swee; Jyothi Thrivikraman; Kuo-Wei Tseng; Wei-Chin Tseng; Stephen Doak; Sara Yi Ling Folk; Robin M Tucker Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Anke Klein; N E Wolters; E J M Bol; J Koelen; L de Koning; S S M Roetink; J J van Blom; T Pronk; Claudia van der Heijde; Elske Salemink; Felix Bolinski; Heleen Riper; Eirini Karyotaki; Pim Cuijpers; S Schneider; Ronald M Rapee; Peter Vonk; Reinout W Wiers Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jona R Frohlich; Karli K Rapinda; Michael P Schaub; Andreas Wenger; Christian Baumgartner; Edward A Johnson; Roisin M O'Connor; Norah Vincent; Matthijs Blankers; David D Ebert; Heather D Hadjistavropoulos; Corey S Mackenzie; Jeffrey D Wardell; Mareike Augsburger; Joel O Goldberg; Matthew T Keough Journal: Addict Behav Rep Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Alicja Monika Jodczyk; Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak; Natalia Adamczyk; Joanna Gębarowska; Zuzanna Sikora; Grzegorz Gruba; Artur Mamcarz; Daniel Śliż Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Maksymilian Gajda; Katarzyna Sedlaczek; Szymon Szemik; Małgorzata Kowalska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-30 Impact factor: 3.390