Search

Introduction: Identifying subgroups of Temporary (alcohol) Abstinence Challenge (TAC) participants may offer opportunities to enhance intervention effectiveness. However, knowledge about such subgroups is missing. This study aimed to (i) describe a TAC population; (ii) identify subgroups of participants based on determinants of changes in drinking behaviour; and (iii) characterise subgroups in terms of sociodemographic and other characteristics. Methods: Data from 3803 Dutch TAC participants were analysed to identify subgroups using three‐step Latent Class Analysis. Classes were based on determinants of changes in drinking behaviour (i.e., drinking refusal self‐efficacy, craving and behavioural automaticity) and were characterised by sociodemographic characteristics, drinking behaviour, previous participation in TACs, self‐reported health and life satisfaction. Results: The majority of TAC participants were female, highly educated, employed, 53 years old on average, participated in previous TACs and reported relatively high alcohol use. Four classes of participants were identified: (i) 'ordinary drinkers' (49.0%); (ii) 'drinkers in control' (21.4%); (iii) 'habitual drinkers with perceived control to refuse' (18.4%); and (iv) 'drinkers not in control' (11.2%). Class 2 drank least often and non‐excessive volumes, while other classes typically drank 4 or more days per week and 3 to 4 glasses per drinking day, with the highest alcohol use found in class 4. Discussion and Conclusions: Different configurations of determinants in this study's four subgroups may require different intervention approaches and might inform personalised support. Future research is needed to examine the predictive value of these subgroups on post‐challenge drinking behaviour to assess support needs and participation value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The popularity of temporary abstinence challenges (TACs) concerning alcohol consumption is increasing. Support is found to be essential for participants to help them get through a challenge. This study aimed to evaluate the additional effect of a self-help guide, based on health behaviour theories and behaviour change techniques, on (i) successful completion of a TAC and (ii) changes in drinking refusal self-efficacy (DRSE), behavioural automaticity, craving, and alcohol consumption. Methods A randomized controlled trial was performed (OSF registries: OSF.IO/B95VU). NoThanks participants received a questionnaire before the TAC (T0) and 8 months after the TAC (T1). Out of a subgroup of 1308 respondents who were interested in additional support, 652 were randomly assigned to receive the guide (experimental group), and 656 did not receive any additional support (control group). Logistic regressions and (generalized) linear mixed model analyses were used. Results After 8 months, all participants showed a significant decrease in behavioural automaticity, craving, and alcohol consumption, irrespective of group assignment. No significant changes were observed in the DRSE. This degree of change over time in behavioural automaticity, craving, and alcohol consumption did not differ between the experimental and control group. Sensitivity analyses with participants in the experimental group, who differed in exposure to the guide, did not show differences either. Conclusion The self-help guide, and how it was designed, added no value to the TAC. Future research should focus on more bottom-up, customized support and explore what (different subgroups of) participants think they need as extra support during a TAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hazardous drinking among students in higher education is a growing concern. The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) is the gold standard screening instrument for hazardous drinking in the adult population, for which an abbreviated version has been developed: the -AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C). Currently, there's no gold standard for identifying hazardous drinking among students in higher education and little evidence regarding the concurrent validity of the AUDIT-C as a screening instrument for this group. This study investigated the concurrent validity of the AUDIT-C in a sample of university students and suggests the most appropriate cutoff points.Methods: Cross-sectional data of health surveys from 5,401 university and university of applied sciences in the Netherlands were used. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for different cutoff scores of AUDIT-C were calculated for the total sample and for subgroups stratified by age, gender, and educational level. AUDIT-score ≥11 was used as the criterion of hazardous and harmful drinking.Results: Twenty percent of students were hazardous and harmful drinkers. The area under the ROC curve was 0.922 (95% CI 0.914-0.930). At an AUDIT-C cutoff score of ≥7, sensitivity and specificity were both >80%, while other cutoffs showed less balanced results. A cutoff of ≥8 performed better among males, but for other subgroups ≥7 was most suitable.Conclusion: AUDIT-C seems valid in identifying hazardous and harmful drinking students, with suggested optimal cutoffs 7 (females) or 8 (males). However, considerations regarding avoiding false-positives versus false-negatives, in relation to the type of intervention following screening, could lead to selecting different cutoffs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The standard screening instrument for alcohol problems in the current primary care, the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C), contains a question about alcohol consumption "on a typical day." Since this is a term that leaves room for multiple interpretations and the differences between alcohol consumption on weekends and weekdays are not taken into account, this study examines whether the latter distinction improves the prediction validity of the screening instrument., Methods: A subgroup of 852 participants of the Dutch version of Dry January ("NoThanks") 2022 got the annual "NoThanks" survey, including questions about their alcohol consumption on weekends and weekdays, and the original ten AUDIT questions. The full AUDIT was used as golden standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated for the original and different versions of the AUDIT-C., Results: Of all participants, 67 percent were hazardous drinkers (AUDIT ≥8) and 27 percent were harmful drinkers (AUDIT ≥16). For the original AUDIT-C, the cut-off score with the most balanced combination of sensitivity and specificity for hazardous drinking in men was 7 and in women was 6. For harmful drinking, this was 8 and 7, respectively. Certain versions performed equally well as the original. For harmful drinkers, the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.814 and 0.866 for the original AUDIT-C, for men and women, respectively. Only for hazardous drinking men, the AUDIT-C with weekend day (AUROC = 0.887) performed slightly better than the original., Conclusion: Distinguishing weekend- and weekday alcohol consumption in the AUDIT-C does not lead to better predictions of problematic alcohol use. However, the distinction between weekends and weekdays provides more detailed information for healthcare professionals and can be used without having to compromise too much on validity., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)