Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Jan-Feb;11(1):53-9.
doi: 10.1370/afm.1464.

Clinician suspicion of an alcohol problem: an observational study from the AAFP National Research Network

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Clinician suspicion of an alcohol problem: an observational study from the AAFP National Research Network

Daniel C Vinson et al. Ann Fam Med. 2013 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Purpose: In clinical practice, detection of alcohol problems often relies on clinician suspicion instead of using a screening instrument. We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of clinician suspicion compared with screening-detected alcohol problems in patients.

Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional study of 94 primary care clinicians' office visits. Brief questionnaires were completed separately after a visit by both clinicians and eligible patients. The patient's anonymous exit questionnaire screened for hazardous drinking based on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) and for harmful drinking (alcohol abuse or dependence) based on 2 questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. After the visit, clinicians responded to the question, "Does this patient have problems with alcohol?" with answer options including "yes, hazardous drinking" and "yes, alcohol abuse or dependence." Analyses assessed the associations between patients' responses to screening questions and clinician's suspicions.

Results: Of 2,518 patients with an office visit, 2,173 were eligible, and 1,699 (78%) completed the exit questionnaire. One hundred seventy-one (10.1%) patients had a positive screening test for hazardous drinking (an AUDIT-C score of 5 or greater) and 64 (3.8%) for harmful drinking. Clinicians suspected alcohol problems in 81 patients (hazardous drinking in 37, harmful drinking in 40, and both in 4). The sensitivity of clinician suspicion of either hazardous or harmful drinking was 27% and the specificity was 98%. Positive and negative predictive values were 62% and 92%, respectively.

Conclusion: Clinician suspicion of alcohol problems had poor sensitivity but high specificity for identifying patients who had a positive screening test for alcohol problems. These data support the routine use of a screening tool to supplement clinicians' suspicions, which already provide reasonable positive predictive value.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of patient enrollment.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010
    1. Grant BF, Dawson DA, Stinson FS, Chou SP, Dufour MC, Pickering RP. The 12-month prevalence and trends in DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: United States, 1991–1992 and 2001–2002. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;74(3):223–234 - PubMed
    1. Fleming M F, Barry KL, Manwell LB, Johnson K, London R. Brief physician advice for problem alcohol drinkers. A randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices. JAMA. 1997;277(13):1039–10 45 - PubMed
    1. Moyer A, Finney JW, Swearingen CE, Vergun P. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta-analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking populations. Addiction. 2002;97(3):279–292 - PubMed
    1. Wallace P, Cutler S, Haines A. Randomised controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in patients with excessive alcohol consumption. BMJ. 1988;297(6649):663–668 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types