Compose A Word Paper Detailing The Individual Experience ✓ Solved

Compose a word paper detailing the individual experience of admi

Compose a paper detailing the individual experience of administering 2 alcohol screening tools. The student will conduct a mock interview with a friend or family member using two of the following tools: Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, T-ACE, and/or Michigan Alcohol Screening Test. Students will briefly describe the tools and describe their experience administering each tool including both the strengths, weaknesses, challenges with administering the tool, and suggestions to improve the tools.

Paper For Above Instructions

Alcohol consumption is a major public health concern, and screening for alcohol use disorders is an essential first step in addressing this issue. As part of this experiential paper, I administered two alcohol screening tools: the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST). This exercise involved conducting mock interviews with a close friend, allowing me to explore both the practical aspects of administering these tools and their theoretical underpinnings.

Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT)

The AUDIT is a widely used screening tool developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for identifying individuals with hazardous or harmful patterns of alcohol consumption. This 10-item questionnaire assesses alcohol use and dependency levels based on three domains: alcohol consumption, alcohol dependence, and alcohol-related problems.

In administering the AUDIT, I found several strengths. Firstly, the tool is straightforward and easy to understand, which makes it accessible for individuals without a clinical background. During the mock interview, my friend was able to complete the questionnaire without confusion, indicating that its language and structure are user-friendly (Saunders et al., 1993).

However, there were also weaknesses. One challenge I faced was the need to ensure my friend responded honestly about their drinking habits. This can be a common issue with self-reported measures, as individuals may underreport their alcohol use due to social stigma or fear of judgment. Additionally, while the AUDIT provides a comprehensive overview of alcohol use, it may not capture the complexity of an individual's relationship with alcohol, particularly when dealing with cultural or situational factors (Reinert & Allen, 2002).

To enhance the AUDIT, I suggest implementing a brief preamble that emphasizes confidentiality, encouraging individuals to answer truthfully. Moreover, integrating questions regarding cultural contexts and personal experiences with alcohol may increase the tool's effectiveness and relevance to diverse populations.

Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST)

The MAST is another validated screening tool that consists of a series of yes/no questions designed to assess the extent of alcohol-related problems in an individual's life. It can also provide insight into the severity of potential alcohol use disorders (Selzer, 1971).

One notable strength of the MAST is its ability to identify individuals who may not consider themselves at risk because they do not engage in typical binge drinking or heavy drinking patterns. The yes/no format provides simplicity, allowing for quick assessment and scoring, which is essential in a clinical setting where time may be limited (Wells et al., 1998).

However, a limitation of the MAST is that, similar to the AUDIT, it relies heavily on self-reporting. In my mock interview, some questions proved challenging for my friend as they forced a binary decision, which may not accurately reflect their experiences with alcohol. This format can be limiting, especially for individuals who may struggle with the implications of admitting to certain behaviors (Babor et al., 2001).

To improve the MAST, I would recommend expanding the response options to incorporate a Likert scale instead of just yes/no answers. This could provide a more nuanced understanding of an individual’s alcohol use and its impact on their life. Additionally, offering educational material about the significance of honest responses could help mitigate reluctance to disclose more sensitive information.

Conclusion

Administering the AUDIT and MAST provided valuable insights into the complexities surrounding alcohol screening tools. Both tests have their strengths in identifying potential alcohol use disorders; however, they also face challenges related to self-reporting and response formats. Improving these tools through participant reassurance and enhanced question designs can make them more effective in identifying individuals at risk. Ultimately, alcohol screening tools like the AUDIT and MAST play a critical role in the early identification and intervention of alcohol-related problems, which is essential in supporting public health initiatives.

References

• Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., Saunders, J., & Grant, M. (2001). AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Care. World Health Organization.
• Reinert, D. F., & Allen, J. P. (2002). The alcohol use disorders identification test: An update of research findings. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26(2), 272-279.
• SAunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., Delafuente, J., & Grant, M. (1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption–II. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 18(3), 508-516.
• Selzer, M. L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: Theoretical Developments and Clinical Adaptation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 32(1), 12-24.
• Wells, R. S., Hoh, K., Mckinlay, J. B., & Fleming, R. (1998). Comparison of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59(3), 510-518.