ArticleDrug and alcohol review2022
Indigenous Australian drinking risk: Comparing risk categorisations based on recall of recent drinking occasions to AUDIT-C screening in a representative sample.
Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- More than three times as many Indigenous Australian clients at risk from drinking could be supported if clinicians used AUDIT-C instead of unstructured assessments.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) Australians have identified alcohol consumption as an area of concern. Accurate screening tools are required to help detect and assist at-risk drinkers, and to provide accurate data to policy makers. The Finnish method (determining drinking patterns based on the last two to four drinking occasions), has been proposed as a culturally appropriate and effective screening tool for detecting Indigenous Australians at risk from alcohol consumption. While it has been found to be valid and acceptable for use with Indigenous Australians, the Finnish method has not been compared to the three-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) which is currently recommended by the Australian government for use in Aboriginal community-controlled health services.
methodsWe compared the performance of the AUDIT-C and Finnish method as screening tools for detecting harms experienced from alcohol in a representative, cross-sectional, sample of Indigenous Australians.
resultsAUDIT-C was substantially faster for participants to complete than the Finnish method. Metrics derived from both the AUDIT-C and Finnish method were similarly linked to the frequency of self-reported International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision dependence symptoms and harms. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe AUDIT-C is likely most appropriate for use in clinical settings due to its speed and ease of use. The Finnish method provides relatively detailed information about drinking and is better suited to population surveys.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.