Screening for adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in alcohol dependent patients: Underreporting of ADHD symptoms in self-report scales.
ADHD
Addiction
Alcohol dependence
Screening
Substance use disorder
Validity
Journal
Drug and alcohol dependence
ISSN: 1879-0046
Titre abrégé: Drug Alcohol Depend
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 7513587
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2019
01 02 2019
Historique:
received:
28
07
2018
revised:
13
11
2018
accepted:
15
11
2018
pubmed:
26
12
2018
medline:
27
6
2019
entrez:
25
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common comorbid disorder that is frequently overlooked in adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Moreover, identifying ADHD in AUD patients is time-consuming and difficult. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of two self-report screening instruments for adult ADHD in AUD patients. 404 adults seeking residential treatment for AUD were screened using the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale Screening Self-Rating (CAARS-S-SR) and the Adult ADHD Rating Scale (ASRS). Results were compared with ADHD diagnosis obtained from a stepped approach: first, a structured interview (Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in adults 2.0.; DIVA) was applied; second, probable ADHD diagnoses had to be confirmed by two expert clinicians. At the previously reported cut-off values, ASRS and CAARS-S-SR showed low sensitivities of 57.1 and 70.6%. A high number of false negative results (NPV ASRS: 89.5%; CAARS-S-SR: 92.3%) indicates underreporting of ADHD symptoms. Sensitivity improved at lower cut-off (ASRS ≥ 11; CAARS-S-SR ≥60) or with a combination of both instruments at lower cut-offs. Area Under the Curve (AUC) for the combination of ASRS and CAARS-S-SR was superior to the AUCs of the single questionnaires. Underreporting of ADHD symptoms in ASRS and CAARS-S-SR of AUD patients requires lower cut-off values to detect the majority of ADHD, albeit at the expense of an increased rate of false-positive results. Cut-off values should be adjusted to the clinical setting. Clinicians should take into consideration that a negative screening result does not necessarily imply absence of ADHD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common comorbid disorder that is frequently overlooked in adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Moreover, identifying ADHD in AUD patients is time-consuming and difficult. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of two self-report screening instruments for adult ADHD in AUD patients.
METHODS
404 adults seeking residential treatment for AUD were screened using the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale Screening Self-Rating (CAARS-S-SR) and the Adult ADHD Rating Scale (ASRS). Results were compared with ADHD diagnosis obtained from a stepped approach: first, a structured interview (Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in adults 2.0.; DIVA) was applied; second, probable ADHD diagnoses had to be confirmed by two expert clinicians.
RESULTS
At the previously reported cut-off values, ASRS and CAARS-S-SR showed low sensitivities of 57.1 and 70.6%. A high number of false negative results (NPV ASRS: 89.5%; CAARS-S-SR: 92.3%) indicates underreporting of ADHD symptoms. Sensitivity improved at lower cut-off (ASRS ≥ 11; CAARS-S-SR ≥60) or with a combination of both instruments at lower cut-offs. Area Under the Curve (AUC) for the combination of ASRS and CAARS-S-SR was superior to the AUCs of the single questionnaires.
CONCLUSIONS
Underreporting of ADHD symptoms in ASRS and CAARS-S-SR of AUD patients requires lower cut-off values to detect the majority of ADHD, albeit at the expense of an increased rate of false-positive results. Cut-off values should be adjusted to the clinical setting. Clinicians should take into consideration that a negative screening result does not necessarily imply absence of ADHD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30583265
pii: S0376-8716(18)30830-5
doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.11.020
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
52-58Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.