ArticlePloS one2025
Adaptation and validation of a Rwanda-focused version of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT).
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the lived experience of alcohol use disorder patients in accessing hospitalized treatment care in Rwanda.Discover mental health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Rwanda, alcohol use disorder (AUD) is estimated to affect 7% of the population. The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) is an excellent screening instrument for AUD, but a Rwanda-focused version previously was unavailable. Our objective was to develop a Rwanda- focused AUDIT and evaluate its psychometric properties. The English AUDIT was adapted to the Rwandan language through translation and back- translation by a panel of native English and Kinyarwanda speakers. Random sampling was used to recruit participants from the emergency department, outpatient clinics, and inpatient wards at a tertiary care center in Rwanda, excluding those < 18 years old, declining to participate, unable to provide consent, or when participation would interfere with care. Participants completed the Rwanda-focused AUDIT using an audio computer-assisted self-interviewing format. Internal structure was assessed using one-, two- and three-dimensional models of fit and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), assessed by Chi-square (χ2), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI). Of 775 patients assessed for enrollment, 7% were unable to provide consent, 12% declined to participate, 2% could not participate because it would disrupt their medical care, and 1.3% dropped out, leaving 614 included for analysis. Of the 614, the majority were male (61%), married (53%) and had only primary education (65%). Their ages were: 33% 18-30, 43% 31-50, and 25% > 50 years-old. Factor loading for the AUDIT CFA model was between 0.62 and 0.96 for all items. Model fit indices included χ2 of < 0.001, RMSA of 0.061 (0.049 - 0.073), TLI of 0.994, and CFI of 0.995. Reliability statistics included Cronbach's alpha at 0.91 (0.90 - 0.92), Omega 6 at 0.948 and composite reliability at 0.977. The Rwanda-focused AUDIT showed excellent performance for measures of internal structure with high factor loading on CFA and model fit indices meeting traditional parameters of RMSEA < 0.08, TLI > 0.90, and CFI > 0.95. In this context, χ2 should ideally be > 0.05, however a relatively large sample, such as ours, tends to depress the number. All reliability statistics were above 0.90, indicating strong internal consistency. These findings support the reliability of this screening instrument. Further research should focus on the development of brief interventions for those who screen positive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.