4.4 Article

Hazardous Drinking Prevalence and Correlates in Older New Zealanders: A Comparison of the AUDIT-C and the CARET

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGING AND HEALTH
Volume 31, Issue 10, Pages 1770-1789

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0898264318794108

Keywords

alcohol; health care use; NZHWR; screening; SF-12

Funding

  1. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [MAUX1205]
  2. New Zealand Health Promotion Agency [5478]
  3. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [K24AA15957, K01AA024832]
  4. New Zealand Lottery Health Research Fund [LHR-2018-72926]
  5. MRC [MR/R024227/1, MR/K013351/1, MR/M006638/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The study compared the proportion of older adults identified as drinking hazardously based on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) with the older adult-specific Comorbidity Alcohol Risk Evaluation Tool (CARET) and investigated whether sociodemographics, comorbidities, health, medication use, and alcohol-related risk behaviors explained discrepancies between the screens in classification of hazardousness. Method: The AUDIT-C and the CARET were administered to 3,673 adults aged 55 to 89 years. Classification agreement between the screens was evaluated using Cohen's kappa. Hazardous drinking groups were compared using logistic regression. Results: Analysis indicated moderate agreement between the screens. Drinkers classified as hazardous on the CARET only consumed less alcohol, but were more likely to drink-drive. Introducing a drink-driving criterion into the calculation of hazardousness on the AUDIT-C substantially decreased the classification discrepancy between the measures. Discussion: Standard screening can be improved by investigating comorbidities, medication use, and alcohol-related risk behaviors in those initially identified as nonhazardous drinkers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available