Daeppen 2011 non‐HED.

Methods	Design: RCT Follow‐up: 6 months Attrition: 7.5%
Participants	Mean age (years): 19.9 Sex: 100% male N participants: 147 Allocation: n = 74 intervention; n = 73 control Setting: army recruitment, non‐binge drinkers (lower risk) 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 (Gmel et al., 2003)). 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	Low risk	Atrrition 7.5%
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