A review of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), AUDIT-C, and USAUDIT for screening in the United States: Past issues and future directions.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians screen all adults for alcohol misuse and provide brief counseling to those engaged in risky or hazardous drinking. The World Health Organization's (WHO's) Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is the most widely tested instrument for screening in primary health care. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the structural and functional features of the AUDIT and methodological problems with the validation of the alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C). The content, scoring, and rationale for a new version of the AUDIT (called the USAUDIT), adapted to US standard drink size and hazardous drinking guidelines, is presented. METHOD: Narrative review focusing on the consumption elements of the AUDIT. Four studies of the AUDIT-C are reviewed and evaluated. RESULTS: The AUDIT has been used extensively in many countries without making the changes in the first three consumption questions recommended in the AUDIT User's Manual. As a consequence, the original WHO version is not compatible with US guidelines and AUDIT scores are not comparable with those obtained in countries that have different drink sizes, consumption units, and safe drinking limits. Clinical and Scientific Significance. The USAUDIT has adapted the WHO AUDIT to a 14 g standard drink, and US low-risk drinking guidelines. These changes provide greater accuracy in measuring alcohol consumption than the AUDIT-C.

The effect of screening and brief intervention for risky drinking on health care utilization in managed care organizations.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the effect of screening and brief intervention (SBI) for risky alcohol use on the health care utilization of risky drinkers in 4 managed care organizations. RESEARCH DESIGN: A quasi-experimental group design was implemented in which 12 participating primary care clinics randomly were assigned to 1 of 3 study conditions. In one condition, physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners delivered the brief intervention. In another condition, midlevel professionals (usually nurses) performed the brief intervention. In the third condition, SBI was not performed. Using administrative claims data, we estimated the effect of SBI on individual-level annual days of total and inpatient health care utilization; annual outpatient visits; annual emergency room visits; and annual visits related to alcohol, drug, or mental health conditions. Negative binomial regression models were used to control for other factors that may affect health care utilization. RESULTS: Across all categories of care, the pre- to postintervention change in average health care utilization among risky drinkers in the intervention clinics was not significantly different from that of risky drinkers in the comparison clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that there is no effect of SBI on the health care utilization of risky drinkers in the year following the intervention. Although SBI does not appear to reduce health care utilization, previous studies find that it significantly reduces the alcohol consumption of risky drinkers. Because these reductions presumably improve patients' overall health and well-being, managed care organizations may still find it beneficial to implement SBI on a broad scale.

Brief interventions for at-risk drinking: patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness in managed care organizations.

AIMS: Evaluate effectiveness and costs of brief interventions for patients screening positive for at-risk drinking in managed health care organizations (MCOs). METHODS: A pre-post, quasi-experimental, multi-site evaluation conducted at 15 clinic sites within five MCO settings. At-risk drinkers (N = 1329) received either: (i) brief intervention delivered by licensed practitioners; or (ii) brief intervention delivered by mid-level professional specialists (nurses); or (iii) usual care (comparison condition). Clinics were randomly assigned to three study conditions. Data were collected on the cost of screening and brief intervention. Follow-up interviews were conducted at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Participants in all three study conditions were drinking significantly less at 3-month follow-up, but the decline was significantly greater in the two intervention groups than in the control group. There were no significant differences between the two intervention conditions. Of the patients in the intervention conditions 60% reduced their alcohol consumption by > or =1 drink per week, compared with 53% of those in the control condition. No differences were found on a measure of the quality of life. Differential reductions in weekly alcohol consumption between intervention and control groups were significant at 12-month follow-up. Average incremental costs of the interventions were 4.16 US dollar per patient using licensed practitioners and 2.82 US dollar using mid-level specialists. CONCLUSION: Alcohol screening and brief intervention when implemented in managed care organizations produces modest, statistically significant reductions in at-risk drinking. Interventions delivered to a common protocol by mid-level specialists are as effective as those delivered by licensed practitioners at about two-thirds the cost.

Training medical providers to conduct alcohol screening and brief interventions.

Although progress has been made in developing a scientific basis for alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI), training packages are necessary for its widespread dissemination in primary care settings. This paper evaluates a training package developed for the Cutting Back SBI program. Three groups of medical personnel were compared before and after SBI training: physicians (n = 44), medical students (n = 88), and non-physicians (n = 41). Although the training effects were at times dependent on group membership, all changes were in a direction more conducive to implementing SBI. Physicians and medical students increased confidence in performing screening procedures, and students increased self-confidence in conducting brief interventions. Non-physicians perceived fewer obstacles to screening patients after training. Trained providers reported conducting significantly more SBI than untrained providers, and these differences were consistent with patients' reports of their providers' clinical activity. Thus, when delivered in the context of a comprehensive SBI implementation program, this training is effective in changing providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practice of SBI for at-risk drinking.

Alcohol drinking patterns and health care utilization in a managed care organization.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relationship between current drinking patterns and health care utilization over the previous two years in a managed care organization (MCO) among individuals who were screened for their alcohol use. STUDY DESIGN: Three primary care clinics at a large western MCO administered a short health and lifestyle questionnaire to all adult patients on their first visit to the clinic from March 1998 through December 1998. Patients who exceeded the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) guidelines for moderate drinking were given a more comprehensive alcohol screening using a modified version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Health care encounter data for two years preceding the screening visit were linked to the remaining individuals who responded to one or both instruments. Using both quantity-frequency and AUDIT-based drinking pattern variables, we estimated negative binomial models of the relationship between drinking patterns and days of health care use, controlling for demographic characteristics and other variables. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For both the quantity-frequency and AUDIT-based drinking pattern variables, current alcohol use is generally associated with less health care utilization relative to abstainers. This relationship holds even for heavier drinkers, although the differences are not always statistically significant. With some exceptions, the overall trend is that more extensive drinking patterns are associated with lower health care use. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our sample, we find little evidence that alcohol use is associated with increased health care utilization. On the contrary, we find that alcohol use is generally associated with decreased health care utilization regardless of drinking pattern.

The costs of screening and brief intervention for risky alcohol use.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate provider-incurred costs of alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) for risky drinking as implemented in four managed care organizations (MCOs) participating in the Cutting Back project implemented by the University of Connecticut Health Center. METHOD: Each MCO provided two comparable primary care clinics in which two different SBI models were implemented: the "Practitioner" (P) model and the "Specialist" (S) model. Risky drinkers were identified based on responses to a health appraisal form. They were administered the AUDIT to determine an appropriate intervention. Using data collected from these sites, we separately estimated start-up and ongoing implementation costs of the intervention. RESULTS: SBI start-up costs per MCO ranged from approximately dollars 86,000 to dollars 115,000 across the four study MCOs. Across all four study MCOs, the estimated median ongoing implementation cost of administering the health appraisal was dollars 0.25 per patient appraised, and the estimated median cost of screenings was dollars 0.42 per patient screened. The estimated median cost of performing the brief intervention across the study MCOs was dollars 2.59 per patient receiving the intervention in the S clinics and dollars 3.43 per patient receiving the intervention in the P clinics. Labor costs dominated start-up and ongoing implementation. Technical assistance costs accounted for a significant proportion of start-up costs. Implementation in the S model is less costly than in the P model, largely because of the S model's use of less expensive nonphysician labor. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that the cost of SBI is modest, and MCOs may want to consider adopting SBI as an alcohol use prevention tool. Although our results suggest that the S model is less costly than the P model, clinic-level implementation factors may affect the relative costs of the S versus P models.