Cited by 40Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Comfortably Engaging: Which Approach to Alcohol Screening Should We Use?

Open access
Vinson, D. C.·2004·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: We wanted to compare 2 screening instruments for problem drinking, the CAGE and a single question, assessing frequency of use, patient and clinician comfort, and patient engagement in change. METHODS: The study was a crossover, cluster-randomized clinical trial with 31 clinicians in Missouri and 13 in the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) National Network for Family Practice and Primary Care Research; 2,800 patients provided data. The clinician was the unit of randomization. Clinicians decided whether to screen each patient; if they chose to screen, they used the screening approach assigned for that block of patients. The clinician and patient separately completed questionnaires immediately after the office visit to assess each one's comfort with screening (and any ensuing discussion) and the patient's engagement in change. RESULTS: Missouri clinicians screened more patients when assigned the single question (81%) than the CAGE (69%, P = .001 in weighted analysis). There was no difference among AAFP network clinicians (96% of patients screened with the CAGE, 97% with the single question). Eighty percent to 90% of clinicians and 70% of patients reported being comfortable with screening and the ensuing discussion, with no difference between approaches in either network. About one third of patients who were identified as problem drinkers reported thinking about or planning to change their drinking behavior, with no difference in engagement between screening approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients reported similar comfort with the CAGE questions and the single-question screening tools for problem drinking, and the 2 instruments were equal in their ability to engage the patient. In Missouri, the single question was more likely to be used.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1370/afm.83

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vinson, D. C.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Vinson, D. C.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2004-09-01
Volume
2
Issue
5
Pages
398-404
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2168803815
Cited by
40
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
alcohol screening, CAGE questionnaire, problem drinking, patient engagement, clinician comfort, patient comfort, screening instrument comparison, general practice, primary care
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcoholism, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Medical History Taking, Middle Aged, Missouri, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, Prevalence, Cross-Over Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review