W La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol 53, no 1, janvier 2008 26 Objective: To determine the validity and reliability of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) for detecting alcohol and drug use disorders, respectively, in a population with first-episode psychosis (FEP).
Method:Subjects with FEP completed the AUDIT and DAST and were divided into groups according to the presence or absence of a Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) diagnosis of either current alcohol or drug misuse. The data were analyzed to see whether AUDIT and DAST scores were predictive of SCID diagnosis.
Results:Patients with alcohol-related SCID diagnoses and those with drug-related SCID diagnoses scored significantly higher on the AUDIT and DAST, respectively, than the group without the respective SCID diagnosis (P < 0.001 in both cases). The AUDIT functioned best with a problem drinking cut-off score of 10 (sensitivity, 85%; specificity, 91%). The DAST functioned best with a problem drug use cut-off score of 3 (sensitivity, 85%; specificity, 73%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 for the AUDIT and 0.83 for the DAST.
Conclusion:The DAST and AUDIT may reliably identify FEP patients with substance abuse.
Can J Psychiatry 2007;53(1):26-33Information on funding and support and author affiliations appears at the end of the article.
Clinical Implications· Given the efficacy of the AUDIT and DAST in patients with FEP, clinicians should be able to screen for substance use disorders quickly and regularly, with minimal burden on resources. · This might promote better monitoring of substance use disorders in this population, which is prone to adverse consequences from such use. · These instruments function better in a population with FEP when cut-off scores are altered to better suit this population.
Limitations· AUDIT cut-off points are less precise because there were few subjects with problem drinking. A slightly larger sample might have helped in this regard. · One-third of the total catchment area sample either refused treatment and (or) refused consent to participate in this study, limiting somewhat the generalizability of these findings. Data analyzed derived solely from scores on the AUDIT and DAST administered to patients at baseline. Other time points in treatment were not examined.