Hazardous and harmful drinking: a comparison of the AUDIT and CAGE screening questionnaires.
BACKGROUND
Hazardous and harmful use of alcohol remains a public health concern, and many general hospital admissions are alcohol-related.


OBJECTIVE
To compare the CAGE and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaires in screening general medical admissions for harmful or hazardous drinking.


METHODS
Prospective questionnaire-based study.


METHODS
Both questionnaires were administered, and demographic data collected.


RESULTS
One hundred and three patients were included. Of these, 36% were identified by the AUDIT to be drinking hazardously or harmfully, and 22% were identified as CAGE cases. All CAGE cases were also AUDIT cases.


CONCLUSIONS
As the CAGE and the AUDIT are designed to identify different populations, it is not surprising that significantly fewer cases were identified using the CAGE. The AUDIT identifies not just the harmful drinkers detected by the CAGE, but also hazardous drinkers, who have not yet reached that level of harm. As drinkers at an earlier stage may respond better to interventions aimed at reducing their consumption, the AUDIT is preferable in clinical practice.
McCusker
M T
MT
Brent, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health Trust Substance Misuse Service, London, UK. m.mccusker@sghms.ac.uk
Basquille
J
J
Khwaja
M
M
Murray-Lyon
I M
IM
Catalan
J
J
D000437:Alcoholism / Q000175:diagnosis*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D008875:Middle Aged; D015995:Prevalence; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires / Q000592:standards*