The study compared the proportion of older adults identified as drinking hazardously based on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) with the older adult-specific Comorbidity Alcohol Risk Evaluation Tool (CARET) and investigated whether sociodemographics, comorbidities, health, medication use, and alcohol-related risk behaviors explained discrepancies between the screens in classification of hazardousness.
The AUDIT-C and the CARET were administered to 3,673 adults aged 55 to 89 years. Classification agreement between the screens was evaluated using Cohen's kappa. Hazardous drinking groups were compared using logistic regression.
Analysis indicated moderate agreement between the screens. Drinkers classified as "hazardous on the CARET only" consumed less alcohol, but were more likely to drink-drive. Introducing a drink-driving criterion into the calculation of hazardousness on the AUDIT-C substantially decreased the classification discrepancy between the measures.
Standard screening can be improved by investigating comorbidities, medication use, and alcohol-related risk behaviors in those initially identified as nonhazardous drinkers.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,789,058
of 28,482,808 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Aging and Health
#187
of 1,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,882
of 349,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Aging and Health
#7
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,482,808 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
