Alcohol & Alcoholism Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 247-250, 2004
Alcohol & Alcoholism Vol. 39, No. 3 © Medical Council on Alcohol 2004; all rights reserved
VARIATION IN AUDIT (ALCOHOL USED DISORDER IDENTIFICATION TEST) SCORES WITHIN THE FIRST WEEKS OF IMPRISONMENT
1 Comité Départemental de Prévention de l'Alcoolisme (CDPA) and 2 Unité Pénitentiaire de Consultations et de Soins Ambulatoires, Nîmes and 3 Inserm U370, Paris, France
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed at: CDPA 30, 539B Av. J. Prouve, F-30900 Nimes, France. Tel.: +33 (0)4 6629 2513; E-mail: bnalpas{at}bsi.fr
(Received 28 August 2003; first review notified 29 October 2003; in revised form 9 January 2004; accepted 10 January 2004)
Aims: Although the prevalence of alcohol problems amongst detainees is suspected to be high, often only more flagrant problems are detected, restricting the possibilities for intervention in alcohol misuse and reducing opportunities for preventive efforts. This study examined the re-test reliability of AUDIT (the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test) in screening prisoners Methods: AUDIT was administered for the first time on the day of entry to prison and again about 15 days later. The results were analysed according to two AUDIT thresholds: a score of 8 or higher and 12 or higher. Results: Of 75 consecutive entrants tested, 47 male prisoners completed the study. At the first administration, 19.1% of these 47 men met criteria for a probable alcohol problem but this percentage rose to 59.6% on the second occasion (P = 0.0001). The proportion of subjects with a score 12 or higher (probably dependent) was 10.6% the first time versus 42.6% the second time (P = 0.0001). In the 19 who scored positive at the second administration only, changes in answers to the 10 items were coherent with a total score growing from 3.0 to 18.1 (P = 0.0001). No prisoner had a lower AUDIT score on the second administration. As alcohol problems are not routinely considered during the medical and biological examination at entry, no confirmation of the AUDIT results could be obtained, although those obtained at the second administration fitted well with the prevalence rates in previous reports. Conclusions: AUDIT, for the purpose of giving a prevalence estimate or to enter appropriate prisoners into more detailed assessment or interventions, should not be conducted immediately at entry, but some weeks later.