Daniel C. Vinson

Using anonymous exit questionnaires in a university OB/GYN clinic, of 165 pregnant women reporting on drinking prior to pregnancy, 26% screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking. Among 153 non-pregnant women age 50 or younger, 39% screened positive. Of those, 85% had no plans to change their alcohol consumption, as most believed their drinking levels were not risky; 80% had a significant risk of becoming pregnant, but 85% believed pregnancy was unlikely.

Although binge drinking and drug use are rarely discussed during office visits, they're common, costly, and potentially fatal. Help patients stop with these easy-to-use screening tools and effective intervention strategies.

PURPOSE In clinical practice, detection of alcohol problems often relies on clinician suspicion instead of using a screening instrument. We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of clinician suspicion compared with screening-detected alcohol problems in patients. METHODS We undertook a cross-sectional study of 94 primary care clinicians’ office visits. Brief questionnaires were completed separately after a visit by both clinicians and eligible patients. The patient’s anonymous exit questionnaire screened for hazardous drinking based on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) and for harmful drinking (alcohol abuse or dependence) based on 2 questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. After the visit, clinicians responded to the question, “Does this patient have problems with alcohol?” with answer options including “yes, hazardous drinking” and “yes, alcohol abuse or dependence.” Analyses assessed the associations between patients’ responses to screening questions and clinician’s suspicions. RESULTS Of 2,518 patients with an office visit, 2,173 were eligible, and 1,699 (78%) completed the exit questionnaire. One hundred seventy-one (10.1%) patients had a positive screening test for hazardous drinking (an AUDIT-C score of 5 or greater) and 64 (3.8%) for harmful drinking. Clinicians suspected alcohol problems in 81 patients (hazardous drinking in 37, harmful drinking in 40, and both in 4). The sensitivity of clinician suspicion of either hazardous or harmful drinking was 27% and the specificity was 98%. Positive and negative predictive values were 62% and 92%, respectively. CONCLUSION Clinician suspicion of alcohol problems had poor sensitivity but high specificity for identifying patients who had a positive screening test for alcohol problems. These data support the routine use of a screening tool to supplement clinicians’ suspicions, which already provide reasonable positive predictive value.

PURPOSE Hazardous and harmful drinking and sleep problems are common, but their associations among patients seen in primary care have not been examined. We hypothesized that greater levels of alcohol consumption would be associated with several self-reported sleep problems.

Though screening and intervention for alcohol and tobacco misuse are effective, primary care screening and intervention rates remain low. Previous studies have increased intervention rates using vital signs screening for tobacco misuse and clinician prompts for screen-positive patients for both alcohol and tobacco misuse. This pilot study's aims were: (1) To determine the feasibility of combined vital signs screening for tobacco and alcohol misuse, (2) To assess the impact of vital signs screening on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates, and (3) To assess the additional impact of tobacco assessment prompts on intervention rates.

Background: Previous work has validated a single question to screen for hazardous or harmful drinking, but identifying those patients who have an alcohol use disorder (AUD) among those who screen positive is still time consuming. We therefore sought to develop and validate a brief assessment instrument using DSM‐IV criteria for use in primary care medical practice.Methods: Four cross‐sectional surveys of past‐year drinkers. The developmental sample included patients presenting to emergency departments with an acute injury. The second sample, from the same study, was recruited by random‐digit dialing. The third sample was recruited in 5 family medicine practices in Georgia. The fourth sample was the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Interviews with the first 3 samples used the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) used the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule.Results: Two constructs with promising test characteristics were identified: recurrent drinking in hazardous situations and drinking more than intended. Among those who screened positive with the single question in the developmental sample (N=959), if either of the 2 items was positive, the sensitivity for current AUD was 95% and the specificity was 77%. In the second (N=494) and third (N=280) samples, the sensitivity was 94 and 95% and the specificity was 62 and 66%, respectively, among those with a positive screen. In the NESARC sample, including those with at least 1 occasion in the past year of drinking 5 or more drinks (N=7,890), the sensitivity and specificity were 77 and 86%, respectively.Conclusions: The sensitivity and specificity of these 2 items across 4 samples suggest that they could be formulated into 2 questions, potentially providing busy primary care clinicians with an efficient, reasonably accurate assessment instrument to identify AUD among those patients who screen positive with the single screening question.

PURPOSE Previous studies have examined anger at a given moment (state anger) and proxies for injury, or anger as a trait and injuries per se. Findings have been inconsistent. We sought to define further the relationship between state anger and risk of injury.

Aims: To address the accuracy of quantity–frequency (QF) questions in screening for hazardous or harmful drinking. Methods: Three groups were interviewed: patients presenting to emergency departments for care of an acute injury ( n = 1537) or a medical illness ( n = 1151), and community controls interviewed by telephone ( n = 1112). The first question about alcohol was a single alcohol screening question (SASQ), ‘When was the last time you had more than X drinks in one day?’, where X = 4 for women and 5 for men, with any time in the past 3 months considered a positive screen (1 drink = 14 g ethanol). The subsequent alcohol questions were a calendar-based review of recent drinking and the alcohol questions from the diagnostic interview schedule (DIS), which included questions about usual frequency and average quantity. Hazardous drinking was defined as drinking >4 drinks in 1 day or >14 drinks in 1 week for men (women 3 and 7) (Guidelines of the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism). Current alcohol use disorders were defined using DSM-IV criteria. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in identifying hazardous drinking or current alcohol use disorder were compared. Results: The area under the ROC curves in the three samples combined were 0.81 for SASQ (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–0.82), 0.80 for a question about average quantity alone (0.79–0.82) and 0.85 for the product of usual frequency times average quantity (0.84–0.86). The QF product and the question about average quantity performed consistently across the three groups. Conclusions: In clinical settings, one way to put these findings into practice is to screen first with a single question, such as the SASQ, a single question about typical quantity, or a question about the frequency of heavy drinking such as the third item of the alcohol use disorders test (AUDIT).

PURPOSE The risk of an injury increases exponentially with alcohol consumption on a given occasion, but the conclusion that alcohol-related injuries are attributable primarily to heavy drinking may or may not be correct. The prevention paradox states that a large number of people at small risk may contribute more cases of a particular condition than a smaller number of people who are individually at greater risk. We sought to determine the extent to which the prevention paradox applies in the relationship between alcohol consumption and injury.

PURPOSE We wanted to compare 2 screening instruments for problem drinking, the CAGE and a single question, assessing frequency of use, patient and clinician comfort, and patient engagement in change.