Amaro 2009.
Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 3 and 6 months Attrition: 15.8% ‐ 3 months; 16.9% ‐ 6 months |
|
Participants |
Mean age (years): 20.4 Sex: 71% male N participants: 265 Allocation: n = 133 intervention; n = 132 control Setting: university students mandated for alcohol or drug violation (higher risk) Country: USA |
|
Interventions |
Programme type: motivational interviewing, University Assistance Programme (UAP) Set‐up: 2 individual sessions with UAP counsellor (3 sessions for serious offenders) Key components: feedback of assessment results: BMI incorporating motivational interviewing and skills training. For additional social, personal or adjustment issues: solution‐focused therapy, stress management, supportive counselling, coping skills‐based interventions Duration: not stated Control: standard care service offered by the university. First offenders (n = 66) completed a 2.5 h web‐based alcohol education programme, more serious offenders completed a series of 3 sessions plus 1.5 h educational group session focusing on the consequences of alcohol use. |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes: total weekly consumption; total weekend consumption; total weekday consumption, BAC; heavy episode drinking; consequences of alcohol; coping skills; use of protective behaviour Measures: Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Quantity and Frequency Index; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index; Coping Skills Scale; Use of Protective Behaviors Scale |
|
Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | Research funded by the NIAAA. No information about potential conflicts of interest | |
Notes | Results not in suitable format for MA; author contacted for further information | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement "Participants were randomized to one of two interventions conditions . . ." |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | 16.9% attrition and ITT analysis |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Not all alcohol outcomes reported |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not possible to blind participants to intervention. Insufficient information to make judgement about blinding of therapists |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |