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

Paul Toner, Jan Rasmus Boehnke, Phil Andersen, Jim McCambridge

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background
There is a strong rationale for clinicians to identify risky drinking among young people given the harms caused by alcohol. This systematic review evaluates the quality of evidence in the validation literature on alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people under 25.

Methods
Six electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; SSCI; HMIC; ADAI) were searched in May 2016 for published and grey literature. Full-text reports published in English since 1980 were included if they aimed to validate an alcohol screening or assessment measure in comparison with a previously validated alcohol measure. Risk of bias was assessed in studies surpassing a priori quality thresholds for predictive validity, internal and test-retest reliability using COSMIN and QUADAS-2.

Results
Thirty nine reports comprising 135 discrete validation studies were included. Summary estimates indicated that the screening instruments performed well - AUC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88 to 0.93); sensitivity 0.98 (0.95 to 0.99); specificity 0.78 (0.74 to 0.82). Noting a paucity of validation evidence for existing assessment instruments, aggregated reliability estimates suggest a reliability of 0.81 (0.78 to 0.83) adjusted for 10 items. Risk of bias was high for both types of studies.

Conclusions
The volume and quality of available evidence are superior for screening measures. It is recommended that clinicians use alcohol frequency or quantity items if asking a single question. If there is an opportunity to ask more questions either the 3-item AUDIT-C or the 10-item AUDIT are recommended. There is a need to develop new instruments to assess young people’s alcohol-related problems.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)39-49
Number of pages11
JournalDrug and Alcohol Dependence
Volume202
Early online date28 Feb 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Sep 2019

Fingerprint

Validation Studies
Meta-Analysis
Screening
Alcohols
Literature
Reproducibility of Results
MEDLINE
Drinking
Area Under Curve
Databases

Keywords

  • Alcohol; Screening; Assessment; Young people; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

Cite this

@article{c1a5772a81bc469a892186c6296caca6,
title = "Alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies",
abstract = "BackgroundThere is a strong rationale for clinicians to identify risky drinking among young people given the harms caused by alcohol. This systematic review evaluates the quality of evidence in the validation literature on alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people under 25.MethodsSix electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; SSCI; HMIC; ADAI) were searched in May 2016 for published and grey literature. Full-text reports published in English since 1980 were included if they aimed to validate an alcohol screening or assessment measure in comparison with a previously validated alcohol measure. Risk of bias was assessed in studies surpassing a priori quality thresholds for predictive validity, internal and test-retest reliability using COSMIN and QUADAS-2.ResultsThirty nine reports comprising 135 discrete validation studies were included. Summary estimates indicated that the screening instruments performed well - AUC 0.91 (95{\%} CI: 0.88 to 0.93); sensitivity 0.98 (0.95 to 0.99); specificity 0.78 (0.74 to 0.82). Noting a paucity of validation evidence for existing assessment instruments, aggregated reliability estimates suggest a reliability of 0.81 (0.78 to 0.83) adjusted for 10 items. Risk of bias was high for both types of studies.ConclusionsThe volume and quality of available evidence are superior for screening measures. It is recommended that clinicians use alcohol frequency or quantity items if asking a single question. If there is an opportunity to ask more questions either the 3-item AUDIT-C or the 10-item AUDIT are recommended. There is a need to develop new instruments to assess young people’s alcohol-related problems.",
keywords = "Alcohol; Screening; Assessment; Young people; Systematic review; Meta-analysis",
author = "Paul Toner and Boehnke, {Jan Rasmus} and Phil Andersen and Jim McCambridge",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.030",
language = "English",
volume = "202",
pages = "39--49",
journal = "Drug and Alcohol Dependence",
issn = "0376-8716",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies. / Toner, Paul; Boehnke, Jan Rasmus; Andersen, Phil; McCambridge, Jim.

In: Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Vol. 202, 01.09.2019, p. 39-49.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies

AU - Toner, Paul

AU - Boehnke, Jan Rasmus

AU - Andersen, Phil

AU - McCambridge, Jim

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - BackgroundThere is a strong rationale for clinicians to identify risky drinking among young people given the harms caused by alcohol. This systematic review evaluates the quality of evidence in the validation literature on alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people under 25.MethodsSix electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; SSCI; HMIC; ADAI) were searched in May 2016 for published and grey literature. Full-text reports published in English since 1980 were included if they aimed to validate an alcohol screening or assessment measure in comparison with a previously validated alcohol measure. Risk of bias was assessed in studies surpassing a priori quality thresholds for predictive validity, internal and test-retest reliability using COSMIN and QUADAS-2.ResultsThirty nine reports comprising 135 discrete validation studies were included. Summary estimates indicated that the screening instruments performed well - AUC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88 to 0.93); sensitivity 0.98 (0.95 to 0.99); specificity 0.78 (0.74 to 0.82). Noting a paucity of validation evidence for existing assessment instruments, aggregated reliability estimates suggest a reliability of 0.81 (0.78 to 0.83) adjusted for 10 items. Risk of bias was high for both types of studies.ConclusionsThe volume and quality of available evidence are superior for screening measures. It is recommended that clinicians use alcohol frequency or quantity items if asking a single question. If there is an opportunity to ask more questions either the 3-item AUDIT-C or the 10-item AUDIT are recommended. There is a need to develop new instruments to assess young people’s alcohol-related problems.

AB - BackgroundThere is a strong rationale for clinicians to identify risky drinking among young people given the harms caused by alcohol. This systematic review evaluates the quality of evidence in the validation literature on alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people under 25.MethodsSix electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; SSCI; HMIC; ADAI) were searched in May 2016 for published and grey literature. Full-text reports published in English since 1980 were included if they aimed to validate an alcohol screening or assessment measure in comparison with a previously validated alcohol measure. Risk of bias was assessed in studies surpassing a priori quality thresholds for predictive validity, internal and test-retest reliability using COSMIN and QUADAS-2.ResultsThirty nine reports comprising 135 discrete validation studies were included. Summary estimates indicated that the screening instruments performed well - AUC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88 to 0.93); sensitivity 0.98 (0.95 to 0.99); specificity 0.78 (0.74 to 0.82). Noting a paucity of validation evidence for existing assessment instruments, aggregated reliability estimates suggest a reliability of 0.81 (0.78 to 0.83) adjusted for 10 items. Risk of bias was high for both types of studies.ConclusionsThe volume and quality of available evidence are superior for screening measures. It is recommended that clinicians use alcohol frequency or quantity items if asking a single question. If there is an opportunity to ask more questions either the 3-item AUDIT-C or the 10-item AUDIT are recommended. There is a need to develop new instruments to assess young people’s alcohol-related problems.

KW - Alcohol; Screening; Assessment; Young people; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

U2 - 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.030

DO - 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.030

M3 - Article

VL - 202

SP - 39

EP - 49

JO - Drug and Alcohol Dependence

JF - Drug and Alcohol Dependence

SN - 0376-8716

ER -