Practical assessment of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder criteria in routine care: High test-retest reliability of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is underdiagnosed and undertreated in medical settings, in part due to a lack of AUD assessment instruments that are reliable and practical for use in routine care. This study evaluates the test-retest reliability of a patient-report Alcohol Symptom Checklist questionnaire when it is used in routine care, including primary care and mental health specialty settings. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic test-retest reliability study using electronic health record (EHR) data from Kaiser Permanente Washington, an integrated health system in Washington state. The sample included 454 patients who reported high-risk drinking on a behavioral health screen and completed two Alcohol Symptom Checklists 1 to 21 days apart. Subgroups of these patients who completed both checklists in primary care (n = 271) or mental health settings (n = 79) were also examined. The primary measure was an Alcohol Symptom Checklist on which patients self-reported whether they experienced each of the 11 AUD criteria within the past year, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th edition (DSM-5). RESULTS: Alcohol Symptom Checklists completed in routine care and documented in EHRs had excellent test-retest reliability for measuring AUD criterion counts (ICC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.82). Test-retest reliability estimates were also high and not significantly different for the subsamples of patients who completed both checklists in primary care (ICC = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.85) or mental health settings (ICC = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.83). Test-retest reliability was not moderated by having a past two-year AUD diagnosis, nor by the age or sex of the patient completing it. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol Symptom Checklists can reliably and pragmatically assess AUD criteria in routine care among patients who screen positive for high-risk drinking. The Alcohol Symptom Checklist may be a valuable tool in supporting AUD-related care and monitoring AUD criteria longitudinally in routine primary care and mental health settings.

Practical Assessment of Alcohol Use Disorder in Routine Primary Care: Performance of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent but underrecognized and undertreated in primary care settings. Alcohol Symptom Checklists can engage patients and providers in discussions of AUD-related care. However, the performance of Alcohol Symptom Checklists when they are used in routine care and documented in electronic health records (EHRs) remains unevaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric performance of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist in routine primary care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning analyses of measurement consistency across age, sex, race, and ethnicity. PATIENTS: Patients seen in primary care in the Kaiser Permanente Washington Healthcare System who reported high-risk drinking on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test Consumption screening measure (AUDIT-C ≥ 7) and subsequently completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist between October 2015 and February 2020. MAIN MEASURE: Alcohol Symptom Checklists with 11 items assessing AUD criteria defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), completed by patients during routine medical care and documented in EHRs. KEY RESULTS: Among 11,464 patients who screened positive for high-risk drinking and completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist (mean age 43.6 years, 30.5% female), 54.1% reported ≥ 2 DSM-5 AUD criteria (threshold for AUD diagnosis). IRT analyses demonstrated that checklist items measured a unidimensional continuum of AUD severity. Differential item functioning was observed for some demographic subgroups but had minimal impact on accurate measurement of AUD severity, with differences between demographic subgroups attributable to differential item functioning never exceeding 0.42 points of the total symptom count (of a possible range of 0-11). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol Symptom Checklists used in routine care discriminated AUD severity consistently with current definitions of AUD and performed equitably across age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Integrating symptom checklists into routine care may help inform clinical decision-making around diagnosing and managing AUD.

Understanding measures of racial discrimination and microaggressions among American Indian and Alaska Native college students in the Southwest United States.

BACKGROUND: Racial discrimination, including microaggressions, contributes to health inequities, yet research on discrimination and microaggressions has focused on single measures without adequate psychometric evaluation. To address this gap, we examined the psychometric performance of three discrimination/microaggression measures among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) college students in a large Southwestern city. METHODS: Students (N = 347; 65% female; ages 18-65) completed the revised-Everyday Discrimination Scale, Microaggressions Distress Scale, and Experiences of Discrimination measure. The psychometric performance of these measures was evaluated using item response theory and confirmatory factor analyses. Associations of these measures with age, gender, household income, substance use, and self-rated physical health were examined. RESULTS: Discrimination and microaggression items varied from infrequently to almost universally endorsed and each measure was unidimensional and moderately correlated with the other two measures. Most items contributed information about the overall severity of discrimination and collectively provided information across a continuum from everyday microaggressions to physical assault. Greater exposure to discrimination on each measure had small but significant associations with more substance use, lower income, and poorer self-rated physical health. The Experiences of Discrimination measure included more severe forms of discrimination, while the revised-Everyday Discrimination Scale and the Microaggressions Distress Scale represented a wider range of severity. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, these measures can index varying levels of discrimination for AI/ANs, particularly for those in higher educational settings. This study also informs the measurement of racial discrimination and microaggressions more broadly.

Use of Manifest Injustice in the Washington State Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration.

In the Washington State Juvenile Code, the Manifest Injustice (MI) provision allows judges to sentence youth outside of the standard guidelines. We compared rates of Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA) involvement and MI between racial minority youth and Caucasian youth. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward African American and multiracial youth having MI used to decrease their sentence less frequently than Caucasian youth. African American youth were about half as likely to have MI used to intensify their sentence compared with Caucasian youth (rate ratio = .49, p = .002), whereas multiracial youth were 42 percent less likely (rate ratio = .58, p = .04). More African American youth reside in urban and liberal parts of the state where judges may be more progressive and less likely to use MI to intensify sentences. More diversion programs targeting minority youth exist in urban areas of Washington, and more African American youth are transferred to adult court; both reduce the likelihood of minority youth receiving MI. Judges in rural areas of the state, which have fewer treatment resources, may be using MI to access services only available to court-involved youth. It is imperative that community behavioral health services are available so that youth and families can be justly served.

Briefer assessment of social network drinking: A test of the Important People Instrument-5 (IP-5).

The Important People instrument (IP; Longabaugh et al., 2010) is one of the most commonly used measures of social network drinking. Although its reliability and validity are well-supported, the length of the instrument may limit its use in many settings. The present study evaluated whether a briefer, 5-person version of the IP (IP-5) adequately reproduces scores from the full IP. College freshmen (N = 1,053) reported their own past-month drinking, alcohol-related consequences, and information about drinking in their close social networks at baseline and 1 year later. From this we derived network members' drinking frequency, percentage of drinkers, and percentage of heavy drinkers, assessed for up to 10 (full IP) or 5 (IP-5) network members. We first modeled the expected concordance between full-IP scores and scores from simulated shorter IP instruments by sampling smaller subsets of network members from full IP data. Then, using quasi-experimental methods, we administered the full IP and IP-5 and compared the 2 instruments' score distributions and concurrent and year-lagged associations with participants' alcohol consumption and consequences. Most of the full-IP variance was reproduced from simulated shorter versions of the IP (ICCs ≥ 0.80). The full IP and IP-5 yielded similar score distributions, concurrent associations with drinking (r = 0.22 to 0.52), and year-lagged associations with drinking. The IP-5 retains most of the information about social network drinking from the full IP. The shorter instrument may be useful in clinical and research settings that require frequent measure administration, yielding greater temporal resolution for monitoring social network drinking. (PsycINFO Database Record