Daeppen 2011 HED.
Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 6 months Attrition: 21.4% |
|
Participants |
Mean age (years): 19.9 Sex: 100% male N participants: 271 Allocation: n = 125 intervention; n = 146 control Setting: army recruitment, binge drinkers Country: Switzerland |
|
Interventions |
Programme type: brief motivational interviewing Set‐up: single individual sessions Key components: the strategies included were: opening strategy exploring lifestyle, general alcohol use, alcohol use within a typical day/session, then focusing on the hypothesis of a reduction in alcohol use among binge drinkers or on the status quo among non‐binge drinkers; focusing on the pros and cons of alcohol use; evoking hypothetical changes in drinking patterns; exploring importance, ability, and confidence to change; and eliciting commitment to change and identification of a hypothetical change Duration: 15.8 (± 5.5) min Control: assessment only |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes: the typical number of drinks per week (standard drink containing about 10 g of pure alcohol); and the typical number of binge drinking episodes per month (defined as an occasion with 6 drinks or more, where 6 drinks contain approximately 60 g of pure alcohol and equal to the most common measure of 5 or more drinks of 12 g per drink. Bingers were defined as subjects with typical binge drinking once a month or more. Measures: Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT); the importance, readiness and confidence to change scales; Alcohol use was assessed using the 2 drinking outcome measures and a list of 12 alcohol‐related problems usually experienced by young heavy drinkers |
|
Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | The study was funded by the “Dîme de l’alcool du Canton de Vaud” and declaration of conflicts of interest presented in the paper | |
Notes | The paper reports results separately for binge and non‐binge drinkers. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | ". . . a priori randomization of conscripts to the intervention and the control groups" |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficent information |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Attrition 21.4% |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All alcohol outcomes reported |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not possible to blind participants to intervention |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |