Can the AUDIT consumption items distinguish lower severity from high severity patients seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder?

Abstract

Brief screening tools based on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) consumption items (e.g., AUDIT-C and AUDIT-3) are commonly used in general medical settings to identify at-risk drinkers who may benefit from alcohol interventions. Conversely, in specialty alcohol treatment settings with a high volume of self-referrals, there may be a need for brief screening tools that can help to identify patients who are unlikely to require intensive treatments, but there has been little research on the use of AUDIT-C or AUDIT-3 in this context. The current study examined the utility of brief screeners comprised of the AUDIT consumption items for distinguishing lower-severity patients from high severity patients in a cohort of individuals self-referring to specialty alcohol treatment. Participants were adults seeking treatment for alcohol problems (N = 853) at a large public psychiatric hospital in Toronto, Canada, who completed the full 10-item AUDIT as part of an initial telephone screening with hospital staff. Results of receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed that both the AUDIT-C and the AUDIT-3 demonstrated adequate accuracy (area under the curve; AUC > 0.85) for distinguishing lower-severity patients (defined as those in AUDIT zones I, II, and III) from high-severity patients (defined as those in AUDIT zone IV). Exploratory analyses showed that the addition of AUDIT item 4 (impaired control) to the AUDIT-C and AUDIT-3 significantly improved classification accuracy (AUCs = 0.95; ps < .001), and the resulting brief screeners had cut-points with good sensitivity and specificity (i.e., >80%). Results support the potential utility of brief screeners comprised of the AUDIT consumption items for distinguishing lower-severity from high severity individuals seeking specialty alcohol treatment services, which may assist with the initial screening and triage process. The addition of AUDIT item 4 improved the performance of the AUDIT-C and AUDIT-3 in this context. Future research validating these findings against external criteria, including comprehensive diagnostic information, is required.