. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Nov 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2023 Aug 31;91(11):652–664. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000845

Table 5:

Effect of API for intention-to-treat (randomized to API) and per-protocol (engaged in API) groups versus control (N=891)

Ratio of follow-up to baseline

	API Ratio (95% CI)	Control Ratio (95% CI)	Ratio of ratios (95% CI)	P-value

Binge drinking frequency (past 30-days)
Intention-to-treat ^a	1.68 (1.42, 1.99)	2.00 (1.58, 2.52)	0.84 (0.63, 1.12)	0.243
Per-protocol	1.52 (1.19, 1.94)	2.00 (1.58, 2.52)	0.76 (0.54, 1.06)	0.107
Alcohol consequences
Intention-to-treat ^a	1.64 (1.47, 1.83)	1.90 (1.58, 2.27)	0.87 (0.70, 1.07)	0.187
Per-protocol	1.42 (1.18, 1.71)	1.90 (1.58, 2.27)	0.75 (0.58, 0.97)	0.029

Note:

Intention-to-treat analyses are from the previously published outcomes paper of the M-Bridge study (Patrick et al., 2021) shown as comparison.

Ratios are shown for log-link models. P-values test the null hypothesis that the ratio of ratios is 1. API=Adaptive Preventive Intervention; CI=Confidence Interval