Test–retest reliability of a self-administered Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in primary care patients

Abstract

The time required to conduct drug and alcohol screening has been a major barrier to its implementation in mainstream healthcare settings. Because patient self-administered tools are potentially more efficient, we translated the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) into an audio guided computer assisted self interview (ACASI) format. This study reports on the test-retest reliability of the ACASI ASSIST in an adult primary care population. Adult primary care patients completed the ACASI ASSIST, in English or Spanish, twice within a 1–4 week period. Among the 101 participants, there were no significant differences between test administrations in detecting moderate to high risk use for tobacco, alcohol, or any other drug class. Substance risk scores from the two administrations had excellent concordance (90–98%) and high correlation (ICC 0.90–0.97) for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. The ACASI ASSIST has good test-retest reliability, and warrants additional study to evaluate its validity for detecting unhealthy substance use.

Aplicação do instrumento Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST): uma revisão integrativa

“…Many professionals proceeded to the implementation of ASSIST and among them, we highlight different health professionals (53.8%) (5,7,10,(17)(18)(19)21,(23)(24)(25)(26)28,(31)(32) , followed by trained individuals named as interviewers (34.6%) (2,6,8,11,20,22,27,33) , and researchers (authors), which corresponded to 11,5% (9,16,25) . Regarding the database which the studies were obtained, 34.6% (5,7,11,(16)(17)(18)21,23,26) were from PubMed, followed by the CAPES Journal Portal with 26.9% (2,20,22,25,(31)(32)(33) , SciELO with 19.2% (19,24,(27)(28)(29) , LILACS with 15.4% (6,8,9,…”

“…This IRL shows that 34.6% (5,7,11,(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21) of the studies came from the PubMed database, followed by CAPES Journals with 26.9% (2,(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26) , SciELO with 19.2% (19,24,(27)(28)(29) , Lilacs, with 15.4% (6,(8)(9)30) and Medline, with 3.8% (10) , 19 studies were duplicated in these databases. After selection, 26 studies were intended for analysis.…”

“…The application was conducted in heterogeneous groups with adult prevalence (73.1%) (2,(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)11,17,(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(30)(31)(32)(33) , followed by young students (15.4%) (16,17,19,28) , adolescents (7.7%) (10,29) and elderly (3.8%) (17) . Regarding the level of evidence, the higher prevalence studies referred to those with level IV, that is, cross-sectional studies, which corresponded to 69.2% of the sample (2,(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)16,(18)(19)(20)(23)(24)(27)(28)(29)33) .…”

“…Regarding the level of evidence, the higher prevalence studies referred to those with level IV, that is, cross-sectional studies, which corresponded to 69.2% of the sample (2,(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)16,(18)(19)(20)(23)(24)(27)(28)(29)33) . Many professionals proceeded to the implementation of ASSIST and among them, we highlight different health professionals (53.8%) (5,7,10,(17)(18)(19)21,(23)(24)(25)(26)28,(31)(32) , followed by trained individuals named as interviewers (34.6%) (2,6,8,11,20,22,27,33) , and researchers (authors), which corresponded to 11,5% (9,16,25) . Regarding the database which the studies were obtained, 34.6% (5,7,11,(16)(17)…”

“…Regarding the database which the studies were obtained, 34.6% (5,7,11,(16)(17)(18)21,23,26) were from PubMed, followed by the CAPES Journal Portal with 26.9% (2,20,22,25,(31)(32)(33) , SciELO with 19.2% (19,24,(27)(28)(29) , LILACS with 15.4% (6,8,9,30) and Medline with 3,8% (10) . With regard to place of publication, 50% (5,7,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)23,25,26,(31)(32)(33) of the studies were international, 42.3% (6,8,9,10,11,16,24,(27)(28)(29)(30) were national and 7.7% …”