4.5 Article

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and Mortality 20 Years later

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11469-023-01008-y

Keywords

Alcohol screening; Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; Alcohol consumption; Mortality; Cardiovascular mortality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to determine if AUDIT results can predict mortality after 20 years. An observational study was conducted in Germany, involving 3581 individuals who consumed alcohol. It was found that AUDIT predicted time to death, with a higher risk in individuals with higher AUDIT scores. It also predicted cardiovascular mortality in the same population sample.
The objective was to test whether Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) results may predict mortality after 20 years. An observational study was conducted. It included an interview of a general population sample aged 18 to 64 in northern Germany in the years 1996 - 1997 (baseline) and a mortality-follow-up in the years 2017 - 2018. Study participants were 3581 persons who had consumed alcohol during the last 12 months prior to the baseline assessment. It included the AUDIT which was filled in by study participants. At follow-up, death cases were ascertained including the date of death. Official records and death certificates from local health authorities were used. Cox proportional hazards regression revealed that the AUDIT predicted time to death. The hazard ratio was 1.70 (95% confidence interval: 1.43 - 2.02) with the lowest AUDIT zone of values as the reference group. Competing risks regression analysis for diagnosis-specific mortality data revealed that the AUDIT predicted cardiovascular mortality (subhazard ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.49 - 2.27). It is concluded that the alcohol screening predicted total and cardiovascular mortality in this adult general population sample.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available