2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
36
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
2
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is lower than the only other UK validation study of the instrument (Khadjesari et al, 2017), but that study was of a younger average age sample of people seeking help for their drinking and used the previous UK recommended weekly consumption limits as a reference category (21 units for men and 14 for women). Findings for the sensitivity and specificity of the AUDIT-C are broadly comparable with those reported in systematic reviews of non-UK validation studies in young people (Toner et al, 2019), in primary care patients and in other clinical settings (Kriston et al, 2008;Reinert and Allen, 2007). However, these studies using a variety of reference categories have found lower optimal AUDIT-C cut-offs and greater differences for men and women than reported here (Kriston et al, 2008;Reinert and Allen, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…This is lower than the only other UK validation study of the instrument (Khadjesari et al, 2017), but that study was of a younger average age sample of people seeking help for their drinking and used the previous UK recommended weekly consumption limits as a reference category (21 units for men and 14 for women). Findings for the sensitivity and specificity of the AUDIT-C are broadly comparable with those reported in systematic reviews of non-UK validation studies in young people (Toner et al, 2019), in primary care patients and in other clinical settings (Kriston et al, 2008;Reinert and Allen, 2007). However, these studies using a variety of reference categories have found lower optimal AUDIT-C cut-offs and greater differences for men and women than reported here (Kriston et al, 2008;Reinert and Allen, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The Cronbach alpha for the AUDIT-C has been reported to be 0.75 in the present setting, with a high test-retest reliability of 0.93 [26]. Toner and co-workers recently summarized studies assessing the AUDIT-C (and other instruments related to alcohol consumption) in young people, with an average sensitivity of 0.83, an average specificity of 0.70, and an average reliability of 0.92, and described this instrument as being at least promising as a brief screening tool for alcohol problems [27]. Other questions included gender, age, daily smoking and the number of days of exercise per week (3-7 days) for a typical week.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…Further studies are needed to validate screening tools for ALHIV in low-and middle-income countries [53][54][55] and to develop evidence-based interventions for improving mental health and adherence in ALHIV affected by mental health problems.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We defined viral load at screening as the measurement taken closest to the date of screening, within hundred days before and one day after the screening. [44,45,47,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]. However, none of the tools has been validated in South African ALHIV.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%