Melbury Lodge, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Romsey Road, Winchester, Hants SO22 5DG, UK
Received 27 November 1998; in revised form 9 March 1999; accepted 21 April 1999
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
There has been long-standing interest in screening for risky drinking and the detection of alcohol abuse. The failure of chemical/biological markers to outperform clinical interviewing has been an additional incentive to develop simple/ short instruments which might be used for screening purposes.
The AUDIT (Alcohol-Use Disorders Identification Test) screening tool was developed by the WHO in 1989 to be used as a means of identifying those drinkers who are engaged in hazardous drinking, with a view to early intervention (Babor et al., 1989). AUDIT is a 10-item questionnaire. The scale allows the assessment of hazardous use and dependence and harmful use in the terminology of the WHO, as set out in ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1992
). The standard cut-off point of 8 provides good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of social and medical problems related to alcohol (Conigrave et al., 1995a
,b
).
The test has been used across cultures and was initially incorporated as part of a wider health interview. It has, however, also been utilized as a screening instrument across a wide range of health settings and demonstrated to be a reliable and valid means of detecting hazardous and harmful consumption (Claussen and Aasland, 1993; Sharkey et al., 1996
; Allen et al., 1997
; Piccinelli et al., 1997
; Bradley et al., 1998
). Additionally, it possesses the qualities of brevity, ease of administration, a rich multinational database and an absence of copyright fee (Allen et al., 1997
). Other advantages include the detection of problem drinkers at the less severe end of the spectrum and the reduction of under-reporting due to its frequency-based format. As a result of these numerous benefits, it was considered that the wider adoption of the test might be facilitated if a valid computerized version of the test was available.
In the present work, the computerized format of AUDIT was compared with the paper and pencil version.
![]() |
METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Patients
Attendees underwent a routine clinical interview of approximately 1 h prior to attendance. This included assessment of details of their drinking histories. All patients, with one exception, met the ICD-10 criteria for alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence. The patient who failed to meet either of these criteria had fulfilled the criteria 18 months prior to the study when he had completed a programme of treatment. His attendance was in order to participate in a refresher relapse prevention course. He was abstinent at the time of his attendance.
The sample consisted of 67 men and 43 women. Age ranged from 18 to 71 years with a mean ± SD of 43.06 ± 10.61 years. Duration of problem drinking ranged from 1 to 37 years with a mean of 10.56 ± 8.67 years. Sixty patients required detoxification, whilst a further six commenced attendance after detoxification elsewhere. The daily alcohol consumption ranged from 5 to 60 U daily with a mean of 26.17 ± 11.81 U (1 U = 10 g of pure alcohol).
Assessments
Those patients who were admitted for detoxification were not expected to complete the ratings on their first day of attendance, because of the possible confounding effects of intoxication. A counter-balanced design was chosen with patients alternating between the paper and the computer versions of the questionnaire. Both versions were completed by all patients over 2 days. Patients were also asked to rate the ease of completion, comprehensibility, and degree of intimidation of the computer version, as compared to its paper counterpart, as well as to the acceptability of using a computer to enquire about their drinking habits. The form also included the opportunity for patients to record any other comments. The computerized version presented the user with his/her score at the end of the test and indicated whether the score fell into the safe or hazardous range of drinking. The program used ran under the MS-DOS operating system. This decision was taken, so that the software might run on a low specification machine. A copy is available from the author.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Analysis of the total test scores, irrespective of order of presentation, revealed mean (±SD) values of 29.72 ± 6.51 for the paper version and 29.95 ± 6.72 for the computer version, with a probability of 0.42 (two-tailed test) (Table 1). All patients with the exception of the abstinent patient scored in excess of 8 on both versions of the test.
|
|
Analysis of patient reaction to the use of computers to enquire about their drinking revealed that the majority of patients were unperturbed about supplying details of their drinking to a computer, with only seven patients reporting this as being unacceptable or very unacceptable (Table 3).
|
|
A small number of patients (seven), were taken aback by the computer assessment that their drinking was hazardous. The therapists found this surprising since it had been assumed that these patients must, at some level, have acknowledged a problem with their drinking by their attendance at a treatment facility. As this was an unexpected finding, no attempt was made to monitor or elicit systematically such reactions during the study.
The post-study discussion revealed that a small number of patients (nine), who had been particularly anxious about using computers, derived a sense of increased esteem when they succeeded in completing the computerized version, despite their earlier misgivings. The more general problems of poor vision and language difficulties (encountered by only two patients) applied equally to both the computer and its paper equivalent.
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
With regard to the principal aim of the study, the results suggest that the computer version is as accurate as the paper version from which it is derived. The means of the two versions demonstrated no significant statistical difference either when total scores were compared or when the analysis was undertaken by order of presentation.
No support for the assertion that patients are more candid in their responses to a computer was found. This might be explained by the fact that all participants were already identified as being problem drinkers and were therefore equally honest in their responses on both tests.
The results are not dissimilar to those of Davis and Morse (1991) utilizing a self-administered alcoholism screening test of 37 items based on the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST). Their findings revealed considerable agreement between a computer-administered version of the test and a paper and pencil version. Analagous results were found for the CAGE and Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test, where no significant differences in sensitivities and specificities of the tests were found (Barry and Flemming, 1990)
Our experience is that many patients find using the computerized version acceptable. A potential explanation may be the instantaneous feedback given by the computer. This may be an advantage in the context of increasing motivation, as the provision of non-confrontational feedback is considered a potent component of brief intervention for alcohol-related problems (Bien et al., 1993). A further advantage is that the computer ensures that all questions are completed, which may not be the case in paper and pencil versions of self-rating (Arfwidsson et al., 1974
).
In terms of the general acceptability of a computerized format, no objections were raised by patients regarding the restricted choices offered by the computer, despite the fact that a few patients expanded their responses on the paper version.
A limitation of the results may be that of non-applicability to other populations of drinkers, as the study was conducted with attendees at an alcoholism-treatment facility, and it is important to bear in mind that a small minority (seven in this study) considered the use of computers to enquire about drinking habits unacceptable. Benefits on esteem relied upon staff impressions, rather than on systematic assessment; caution must therefore be exercised in interpreting this latter finding. In conclusion, our study suggests that the computerized version of AUDIT is an acceptable alternative to its paper equivalent and that, for the majority of patients, it is neither more difficult to comprehend nor to complete.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Anderson, R. V. and Min, D. (1987) Computerization of chemical dependency. Minnesota Medicine 70, 697699.[ISI][Medline]
Arfwidsson, L., d'Elia, G., Laurell, B., Ottosson, J. O., Perris, C. and Persson, G. (1974) Can a self-rating replace a doctor's rating in evaluating antidepressive treatment? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 50, 1622.[ISI][Medline]
Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., Saunders, J. and Grant, M. (1989) AUDIT the Alcohol-Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Health Care. World Health Organization, Division of Mental Health, Geneva.
Barry, K. L. and Flemming, M. F. (1990) Computerized administration of alcoholism screening tests in a primary care setting. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 3, 9398.[Medline]
Bien, T. H., Miller, W. R. and Tonigan, J. S. (1993) Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a review. Addiction 88, 315336.[ISI][Medline]
Bohn, M. J., Babor, T. F. and Kranzler, H. R. (1995) The Alcohol-Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): validation of a screening instrument for use in medical settings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 56, 423432.[ISI][Medline]
Bradley, K. A., Boyd-Wickizer, J., Powell, S. H. and Burman, M. L. (1998) Alcohol screening questionnaires in women. Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 166171.
Carr, A. C., Ancill, R. J., Ghosh, A. and Margo, A. (1981) Direct assessment of depression by microcomputer. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 64, 415422.[ISI][Medline]
Claussen, B. and Aasland, O. G. (1993) The Alcohol-Use Disorders Identification Test in a routine health examination of long-term unemployed. Addiction 88, 363368.[ISI][Medline]
Conigrave, K. M., Hall, W. D. and Saunders, J. B. (1995a) The AUDIT questionnaire: choosing a cut-off score. Addiction 90, 13491356.[ISI][Medline]
Conigrave, K. M., Saunders, J. B. and Reznik, R. B. (1995b) Predictive capacity of the AUDIT questionnaire for alcohol-related harm. Addiction 90, 14791485.[ISI][Medline]
Davis, L. J. and Morse, R. M. (1991) Self-administered alcoholism screening test: a comparison of conventional versus computer administered formats. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 15, 155157.[ISI][Medline]
Griest, J. H., Gustafson, D. H., Strauss, F. F., Rowse, G. L., Laughren, T. P. and Chiles, J. A. (1973) A computer interview for suicide risk prediction. American Journal of Psychiatry 130, 13271332.[ISI][Medline]
Levine, S., Ancill, R. J. and Roberts, A. P. (1989) Assessment of suicide risk by computer-delivered self-rating questionnaire: preliminary findings. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 80, 216220.[ISI][Medline]
Mizutani, A. and Fassler, D. (1985) Computer technology in psychiatric practice: the automated interview in perspective. Psychiatric Hospital 16, 135140.[Medline]
Piccinelli, M., Tessari, E., Bortolomasi, M., Piasere, O., Semenzin, M., Garzotto, N. and Tansella, M. (1997) Efficacy of the alcohol-use disorders identification test as a screening tool for hazardous alcohol intake and related disorders in primary care. British Medical Journal 314, 420424.
Sharkey, J., Brennan, D. and Curran, P. (1996) The pattern of alcohol consumption of a general hospital population in North Belfast. Alcohol and Alcoholism 31, 279285.[Abstract]
World Health Organization (1992) International Classification of Diseases, 10th edn. World Health Organization, Geneva.
|