Carey 2009.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 1, 6, and 12 months Attrition: 97% of the 198 students provided data at 1 month, 73% provided data at 6 months, and 70% provided data at 12 months |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 19.17 Sex: 46% female N participants: 198 Allocation: n = 99 BMI; n = 99 Alcohol 101 Plus Setting: university campus with students mandated for alcohol violation Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: brief motivational interviewing Set‐up: individual single session Key components: personalised feedback and alcohol education to prompt exploration of options for reducing risks related to alcohol use Duration: average of 50 min (SD 13.11) Control: Alcohol 101 Plus |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: alcohol use: drinking during a typical week and the heaviest drinking week in the month before the sanction event. maximum number of drinks consumed in a single day and the number of hours spent drinking on that day. peak BAC, frequency of heavy drinking in the month before the sanction event, number of standard drinks consumed on the day of the sanction; alcohol problems: harmful or hazardous alcohol Measures: Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index |
|
| Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Grant R01‐AA12518 to Kate B. Carey | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Used random numbers table |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Attrition 30% at 12 months. A stepwise discriminant function analysis revealed no discrimination (prediction) between completers and drop‐outs for any of the pre‐sanction drinking variables measured at the baseline assessment |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not possible to blind participants to intervention. Insufficient information to make a judgement about blinding of therapists |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Assessment RAs were different staff from those conducting interventions but were not blind to condition |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |