Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Evaluating a drink-counting and a breathalyzer-coupled app for monitoring alcohol use: A comparison with timeline followback and peth biomarker
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Public Health Sciences. Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0013-2965
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 52025 (English)In: Addictive Behaviors Reports, ISSN 2352-8532, Vol. 22, article id 100643Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Aim: Accurately measuring alcohol consumption remains a challenge. This study aimed to evaluate two app-based methods, one using drink-count logging and one using a breathalyzer, by comparing them to retrospective self-report (Timeline Followback, TLFB) and a biomarker of alcohol use (Phosphatidylethanol, PEth).

Methods: Data were acquired from a randomized controlled trial involving alcohol-dependent adults (n = 110). Standard drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days reported via the drink-counting app or breathalyzer, were compared with TLFB data over the 12-week period using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Correlation with PEth was assessed only at the 12-week mark, using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, reporting the area under the curve (AUC).

Results: Compared to app-based methods, TLFB consistently identified more drinking days and heavy drinking days. However, the drink-counting app’s estimates were still relatively close to TLFB and demonstrated strong agreement for drinking days across the different time intervals (CCC = 0.71–0.86). The drink-counting app also showed a strong correlation with PEth values for standard drinks and drinking days (rho = 0.74–0.78). In contrast, breathalyzer data generally showed weak agreement with both TLFB and PEth.

Conclusions: Although TLFB yielded more drinking and heavy drinking days, the drink-counting app showed strong agreement with TLFB and correlated closely with PEth levels, indicating good validity. In contrast, breathalyzer data showed weaker agreement, likely due to lower usage during drinking episodes. These findings suggest that drink-counting apps could provide a reliable tool for monitoring alcohol use, offering advantages over both retrospective reports and breathalyzer measures.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2025. Vol. 22, article id 100643
Keywords [en]
Alcohol dependence, Heavy drinking, mHealth, PEth, Timeline Followback
National Category
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-250100DOI: 10.1016/j.abrep.2025.100643ISI: 001621112200001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-105022009946OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-250100DiVA, id: diva2:2018263
Available from: 2025-12-02 Created: 2025-12-02 Last updated: 2025-12-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Wennberg, Peter

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wennberg, Peter
By organisation
Department of Public Health Sciences
In the same journal
Addictive Behaviors Reports
Drug Abuse and Addiction

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 9 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf