Is there a difference between CAGE interviews and written CAGE questionnaires?

被引:9
作者
Aertgeerts, B
Buntinx, F
Fevery, J
Ansoms, S
机构
[1] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Gen Practice, Clin Epidemiol Unit, B-3000 Louvain, Belgium
[2] Univ Hosp Gasthuisberg, Dept Liver Dis, B-3000 Louvain, Belgium
[3] Univ Maastricht, Dept Gen Practice, Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
CAGE questionnaire; alcohol; outpatients;
D O I
10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb02047.x
中图分类号
R194 [卫生标准、卫生检查、医药管理];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The CAGE questionnaire is a frequently studied and used instrument for screening of alcohol problems. It was developed and tested as a written questionnaire, but, clinically, it is often used as an oral interview. No comparisons have been made between the results of a written and an oral CAGE. This study attempted to (1) compare the results of a written CAGE questionnaire and a CAGE interview, and (2) compare the efficiency of using a simple open-ended question about drinking habits before asking the CAGE and asking the CAGE without an introduction. Methods: All patients who attended a general internal medicine, cardiology, or hepatology clinic were classified according to the week of the consultation, as follows: group I (week 1), patients completed a written CAGE and were subsequently interviewed during a normal consultation by a physician, who also asked the CAGE questions; group II (week 2), a physician first interviewed the patients, including the CAGE, and subsequently patients completed a written CAGE; and group III (week 3), patients completed a CAGE interview after an open-ended introduction ("What do you drink during the day?"). Kappa values were used to compare the answers of the written and oral CAGE interviews (groups II and I). Nonparametric ANOVA was used to compare the results of group III and the oral interview of group II. Results: Mean age was comparable between the groups, gender ratio was comparable between groups I and III, but there were fewer males in group II. Comparison of all written CAGEs with the oral CAGEs in the same patients resulted in an accuracy of 0.91 and a kappa value of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66-0.84). No significant difference could be found between the results of the oral CAGE with or without an open-ended introduction (p = 0.46). Conclusions: We found no difference between the oral and the written versions of the CAGE. This is important because most research results originate from written questionnaires. Our results do not support the finding that a different approach to the CAGE questions results in an increasing number of patients in which alcohol problems were detected.
引用
收藏
页码:733 / 736
页数:4
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] Altman DG, 1990, PRACTICAL STAT MED R
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1994, EPI INFO VERSION 6 W
  • [3] STATISTICAL-METHODS FOR ASSESSING OBSERVER VARIABILITY IN CLINICAL MEASURES
    BRENNAN, P
    SILMAN, A
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1992, 304 (6840): : 1491 - 1494
  • [4] SCREENING FOR ALCOHOL-ABUSE USING THE CAGE QUESTIONNAIRE
    BUSH, B
    SHAW, S
    CLEARY, P
    DELBANCO, TL
    ARONSON, MD
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1987, 82 (02) : 231 - 235
  • [5] A COEFFICIENT OF AGREEMENT FOR NOMINAL SCALES
    COHEN, J
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1960, 20 (01) : 37 - 46
  • [6] CAGE questionnaire allows doctors to avoid focusing on specifics of drinking
    Ewing, JA
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1998, 316 (7147) : 1827 - 1827
  • [7] DETECTING ALCOHOLISM - THE CAGE QUESTIONNAIRE
    EWING, JA
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1984, 252 (14): : 1905 - 1907
  • [8] ALCOHOLISM - EARLY DIAGNOSIS AND INTERVENTION
    HAYS, JT
    SPICKARD, WA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1987, 2 (06) : 420 - 427
  • [9] DOES THIS PATIENT HAVE AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM
    KITCHENS, JM
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 272 (22): : 1782 - 1787
  • [10] SCREENING FOR PATIENTS WITH ALCOHOL-PROBLEMS - SEVERITY OF PATIENTS IDENTIFIED BY THE CAGE
    LAIRSON, DR
    HARLOW, K
    COBB, J
    HARRIST, R
    MARTIN, DW
    RAMBY, R
    RUSTIN, TA
    SWINT, JM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DRUG EDUCATION, 1992, 22 (04) : 337 - 352