Butler 2009.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 4 weeks Attrition: 19.2% |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 20.2 Sex: 65.3% female N participants: 84 (3 groups) Allocation: n = 28 intervention; n = 26 control Setting: undergraduate students at risk of alcohol problems Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: brief personalised feedback and motivational interviewing Set‐up: individual single session Key components: feedback of assessment results: corrective feedback regarding normative drinking on campus; sex‐specific percentile rank comparing participant’s alcohol consumption to campus norms; review of the participant’s binge drinking frequency and related consequences; didactic information on blood alcohol concentration (BAC), including the behavioural effects and potential legal consequences associated with specific BAC levels; personalised BAC curve for typical and heavy drinking occasions; review of the participant’s reported alcohol‐related problems with a sex‐specific percentile rank comparing severity of alcohol‐related problems to campus norms; review of participants' time allocation across alcohol‐related and alcohol‐free activities (e.g. studying, exercise); weekly and estimated yearly consumption of calories consumed from alcohol; weekly, monthly, and yearly money spent on alcohol; review of harm‐reduction strategies; review of on‐ and off‐campus mental health and alcohol treatment resources Duration: 41 min (average) Control: Did not receive any feedback during the duration of the study |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: drinking occasions; binge episodes; drinkers per week; Rutgers Alcohol Problems Index (RAPI) score Measures: Daily drinking questionnaire; RAPI; questionnaire to measure the acceptability of the intervention |
|
| Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | No information | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Random assignment was assured by randomised block design to separately randomise male and female participants |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | 19.2% attrition rate |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | All alcohol outcomes not 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 | High risk | Follow‐up was not carried out by an interviewer blind to the treatment condition |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |