Katharine A. Bradley

Validation of Screening Questions for Limited Health Literacy in a Large VA Outpatient Population

ObjectivesPrevious studies have shown that a single question may identify individuals with inadequate health literacy. We evaluated and compared the performance of 3 health literacy screening questions for detecting patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy in a large VA population.MethodsWe conducted in-person interviews among a random sample of patients from 4 VA medical centers that included 3 health literacy screening questions and 2 validated health literacy measures. Patients were classified as having inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy based on the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM). We evaluated the ability of each of 3 questions to detect: 1) inadequate and the combination of “inadequate or marginal” health literacy based on the S-TOFHLA and 2) inadequate and the combination of “inadequate or marginal” health literacy based on the REALM.Measurements and Main ResultsOf 4,384 patients, 1,796 (41%) completed interviews. The prevalences of inadequate health literacy were 6.8% and 4.2%, based on the S-TOHFLA and REALM, respectively. Comparable prevalences for marginal health literacy were 7.4% and 17%, respectively. For detecting inadequate health literacy, “How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?” had the largest area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.69–0.79) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79–0.89) based on the S-TOFHLA and REALM, respectively. AUROCs were lower for detecting “inadequate or marginal” health literacy than for detecting inadequate health literacy for each of the 3 questions.ConclusionA single question may be useful for detecting patients with inadequate health literacy in a VA population.

Screening for post-traumatic stress disorder in female Veteran’s Affairs patients: validation of the PTSD checklist

We evaluated the screening validity of a self-report measure for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the PTSD Checklist (PCL), in female Veterans Affairs (VA) patients. All women seen for care at the VA Puget Sound Health Care system from October 1996-January 1999 (n=2,545) were invited to participate in a research interview. Participants (n=282) completed the 17-item PCL, followed by a gold standard diagnostic interview for PTSD, the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). Thirty-six percent of the participants (n=100) met CAPS diagnostic criteria for current PTSD. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the screening performance of the PCL. The area under the ROC curve was 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.90). A PCL score of 38 optimized the performance of the PCL as a screening test (sensitivity 0.79, specificity 0.79). The PCL performed well as a screening measure for the detection of PTSD in female VA patients.

Effectiveness of the AUDIT-C as a Screening Test for Alcohol Misuse in Three Race/Ethnic Groups

SummaryBackgroundThe Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption (AUDIT-C) is a brief validated screen for risky drinking and alcohol abuse and dependence (alcohol misuse). However, the AUDIT-C was validated in predominantly White populations, and its performance in different racial/ethnic groups is unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the validity of the AUDIT-C among primary care patients from the predominant racial/ethnic subgroups within the United States: White, African American, and Hispanic.DesignCross-sectional interview validation study.Participants1,292 outpatients from an academic family practice clinic in Texas (90% of randomly sampled eligible).Measurements and Main ResultsRace/ethnicity was self-reported. Areas under the receiver operating curve (AuROCs) evaluated overall AUDIT-C performance in the 3 racial/ethnic groups compared to diagnostic interviews for alcohol misuse. AUDIT-C sensitivities and specificities at recommended screening thresholds were compared across racial/ethnic groups. AuROCs were greater than 0.85 in all 3 groups, with no significant differences across racial/ethnic groups in men (P = .43) or women (P = .12). At previously recommended cut points, there were statistically significant differences by race in AUDIT-C sensitivities but not specificities. In women, the sensitivity was higher in Hispanic (85%) than in African-American (67%; P = .03) or White (70%; P = .04) women. In men, the sensitivity was higher in White (95%) than in African-American men (76%; P = .01), with no significant difference from Hispanic men (85%; P = .11).ConclusionsThe overall performance of the AUDIT-C was excellent in all 3 racial/ethnic groups as reflected by high AuROCs. At recommended cut points, there were significant differences in the AUDIT-C’s sensitivity but not in specificity across the 3 racial/ethnic groups.

Estimating risk of alcohol dependence using alcohol screening scores

Brief alcohol counseling interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and related morbidity among non-dependent risky drinkers, but more intensive alcohol treatment is recommended for persons with alcohol dependence. This study evaluated whether scores on common alcohol screening tests could identify patients likely to have current alcohol dependence so that more appropriate follow-up assessment and/or intervention could be offered. This cross-sectional study used secondary data from 392 male and 927 female adult family medicine outpatients (1993-1994). Likelihood ratios were used to empirically identify and evaluate ranges of scores of the AUDIT, the AUDIT-C, two single-item questions about frequency of binge drinking, and the CAGE questionnaire for detecting DSM-IV past-year alcohol dependence. Based on the prevalence of past-year alcohol dependence in this sample (men: 12.2%; women: 5.8%), zones of the AUDIT and AUDIT-C identified wide variability in the post-screening risk of alcohol dependence in men and women, even among those who screened positive for alcohol misuse. Among men, AUDIT zones 5-10, 11-14 and 15-40 were associated with post-screening probabilities of past-year alcohol dependence ranging from 18 to 87%, and AUDIT-C zones 5-6, 7-9 and 10-12 were associated with probabilities ranging from 22 to 75%. Among women, AUDIT zones 3-4, 5-8, 9-12 and 13-40 were associated with post-screening probabilities of past-year alcohol dependence ranging from 6 to 94%, and AUDIT-C zones 3, 4-6, 7-9 and 10-12 were associated with probabilities ranging from 9 to 88%. AUDIT or AUDIT-C scores could be used to estimate the probability of past-year alcohol dependence among patients who screen positive for alcohol misuse and inform clinical decision-making.

Increased documented brief alcohol interventions with a performance measure and electronic decision support.

BackgroundAlcohol screening and brief interventions (BIs) are ranked the third highest US prevention priority, but effective methods of implementing BI into routine care have not been described. ObjectivesThis study evaluated the prevalence of documented BI among Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients with alcohol misuse before, during, and after implementation of a national performance measure (PM) linked to incentives and dissemination of an electronic clinical reminder (CR) for BI. MethodsVA outpatients were included in this study if they were randomly sampled for national medical record reviews and screened positive for alcohol misuse (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption score ≥5) between July 2006 and September 2008 (N=6788). Consistent with the PM, BI was defined as documented advice to reduce or abstain from drinking plus feedback linking drinking to health. The prevalence of BI was evaluated among outpatients who screened positive for alcohol misuse during 4 successive phases of BI implementation: baseline year (n=3504), after announcement (n=753) and implementation (n=697) of the PM, and after CR dissemination (n=1834), unadjusted and adjusted for patient characteristics. ResultsAmong patients with alcohol misuse, the adjusted prevalence of BI increased significantly over successive phases of BI implementation, from 5.5% (95% CI 4.1%-7.5%), 7.6% (5.6%-10.3%), 19.1% (15.4%-23.7%), to 29.0% (25.0%-33.4%) during the baseline year, after PM announcement, PM implementation, and CR dissemination, respectively (test for trend P<0.001). ConclusionsA national PM supported by dissemination of an electronic CR for BI was associated with meaningful increases in the prevalence of documented brief alcohol interventions.

Primary and secondary prevention of alcohol problems: U.S. internist attitudes and practices.

OBJECTIVE: To describe internists’ involvement in primary and secondary prevention of alcohol-related problems, and to evaluate relationships between preventive practices and training, attitudes, and work patterns.DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 152 board-certified internists, ≤65 years old, who practiced primary care in the continental United States, was selected from the American Medical Association’s master list. Ten were ineligible; 99 (70%) of the remaining 142 internists completed questionnaires.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The authors evaluated the internists’ preventive practices, including the frequency with which they assessed patients’ alcohol consumption and advised patients about safe levels of alcohol consumption. The authors also evaluated the internists’ opinions about safe levels of alcohol consumption, training and attitudes regarding advising patients about safe levels of consumption, and work patterns.RESULTS: Ninety-four percent of the respondents believed they had a responsibility to advise all patients about safe levels of alcohol consumption (primary prevention), though only 30% often/always did so. Eighty percent often/always advised patients who drank three or more drinks daily about safe levels of alcohol consumption (secondary prevention), but many (45%) did not routinely ask patients how much they drank daily. Preventive practices correlated positively with the number of hours/week internists practiced primary care, and with their belief in the effectiveness of preventive advice about alcohol consumption.CONCLUSIONS: Internists believe they have a responsibility for primary prevention of alcohol-related problems, but only a minority actively practice it. In contrast, many internists practice secondary prevention, offering advice about safe alcohol consumption to patients who drink three or more drinks daily. The effectiveness of such secondary prevention is limited, however, by incomplete screening regarding level of alcohol consumption.

How primary care providers talk to patients about alcohol

AbstractBACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse is a common and well-documented source of morbidity and mortality. Brief primary care alcohol counseling has been shown to benefit patients with alcohol misuse. OBJECTIVE: To describe alcohol-related discussions between primary care providers and patients who screened positive for alcohol misuse. DESIGN: An exploratory, qualitative analysis of audiotaped primary care visits containing discussions of alcohol use. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 29 male outpatients at a Veterans Affairs (VA) General Internal Medicine Clinic who screened positive for alcohol misuse and their 14 primary care providers, all of whom were participating in a larger quality improvement trial. MEASUREMENTS: Audiotaped visits with any alcohol-related discussion were transcribed and coded using grounded theory and conversation analysis, both qualitative research techniques. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) patients disclosed information regarding their alcohol use, but providers often did not explore these disclosures; (2) advice about alcohol use was typically vague and/or tentative in contrast to smoking-related advice, which was more common and usually more clear and firm; and (3) discomfort on the part of the provider was evident during alcohol-related discussions. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability of findings from this single-site VA study is unknown. CONCLUSION: Findings from this single site study suggest that provider discomfort and avoidance are important barriers to evidence-based brief alcohol counseling. Further investigation into current alcohol counseling practices is needed to determine whether these patterns extend to other primary care settings, and to inform future educational efforts.

Readiness to Change in Primary Care Patients Who Screened Positive for Alcohol Misuse

PURPOSE Readiness to change drinking may influence the content or effectiveness of brief alcohol counseling. This study was designed to assess readiness to change and its relationship to alcohol misuse severity among primary care patients whose screening questionnaire was positive for alcohol misuse. METHODS This study was a cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 2 consecutive mailed questionnaires. Male outpatients at 7 Veterans Affairs (VA) general medicine clinics were eligible if they returned both questionnaires, screened positive for alcohol misuse (augmented CAGE Questionnaire ≥1 point), responded to 3 readiness-to-change questions, and completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). A validated algorithm based on 3 standardized questions categorized participants into 3 readiness groups (precontemplation, contemplation, action). Measures of alcohol misuse severity included AUDIT, CAGE, and the 3 consumption questions from the AUDIT (AUDIT-C). Analyses were descriptive; linear-by-linear associations between alcohol misuse severity and readiness were tested with χ2 statistics. RESULTS Response rates to the first and second surveys were 59% and 55%, respectively. Of the 6,419 eligible outpatients who screened positive for alcohol misuse, 4,797 (75%) reported any readiness to change (contemplation 24%, action 51%). Among patients with AUDIT scores >8, more than 90% indicated that they drank more than they should and/or had contemplated drinking less. Greater readiness was significantly associated with greater alcohol misuse severity (P <.001 for all measures). CONCLUSIONS Most primary care patients who screen positive for alcohol misuse indicate some readiness to change. Contrary to stereotypes of denial, those with greater alcohol misuse severity are more likely to report readiness to change.

Alcohol Screening Results in Elderly Male Veterans: Association with Health Status and Mortality

Objectives: To evaluate the association between alcohol screening results and health status or mortality in elderly patients.

Screening for problem drinking: comparison of CAGE and AUDIT. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

AbstractOBJECTIVE: To compare self-administered versions of three questionnaires for detecting heavy and problem drinking: the CAGE, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and an augmented version of the CAGE. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Three Department of Veterans Affairs general medical clinics. PATIENTS: Random sample of consenting male outpatients who consumed at least 5 drinks over the past year (“drinkers”). Heavy drinkers were oversampled. MEASUREMENTS: An augmented version of the CAGE was included in a questionnaire mailed to all patients. The AUDIT was subsequently mailed to “drinkers.” Comparison standards, based on the tri-level World Health Organization alcohol consumption interview and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, included heavy drinking (>14 drinks per week typically or ≥5 drinks per day at least monthly) and active DSM-IIIR alcohol abuse or dependence (positive diagnosis and at least one alcohol-related symptom in the past year). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were used to compare screening questionnaires. MAIN RESULTS: Of 393 eligible patients, 261 (66%) returned the AUDIT and completed interviews. For detection of active alcohol abuse or dependence, the CAGE augmented with three more questions (AUROC 0.871) performed better than either the CAGE alone or AUDIT (AUROCs 0.820 and 0.777, respectively). For identification of heavy-drinking patients, however, the AUDIT performed best (AUROC 0.870). To identify both heavy drinking and active alcohol abuse or dependence, the augmented CAGE and AUDIT both performed well, but the AUDIT was superior (AUROC 0.861). CONCLUSIONS: For identification of patients with heavy drinking or active alcohol abuse or dependence, the self-administered AUDIT was superior to the CAGE in this population.