Dermen 2011.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months Attrition: 9% |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 20.7 Sex: 59% female N participants: 154 Allocation: n = 39 alcohol risk intervention; n = 39 HIV risk intervention; n = 36 alcohol + HIV risk intervention; n = 40 control Setting: college students, all levels of risk Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: motivational interviewing Set‐up: 2 individual sessions Key components: create an awareness of the need for change, increase participants’ motivation to make a change, and discuss plans for change Duration: first session approximately 45 min; second session approximately 30 min Control: assessment only |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: alcohol use and sexual behaviour during the prior 90 days; number of standard drinks per week; estimated blood alcohol concentration peaks in a typical week and on a heavier day of drinking; levels of risk associated with tolerance; other drug use, and family history; levels of lifetime and recent consequences of alcohol use; thoughts about cutting down Measures: modified Timeline Followback; Young Adult Alcohol Problems Screening Test; Readiness to Change Questionnaire |
|
| Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | Funded by NIAAA. No information or declarations about potential conflicts of interest | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Project director used a random number table |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Series of random assignment envelopes, but not stated whether opaque |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Low attrition (9%) at 15‐month follow‐up. Participants who were missing outcome data from any follow‐up point were dropped from outcome analyses. Follow‐up completion rates for the 3‐, 6‐, 9‐, 12‐, and 15‐month windows were 95%, 94%, 92%, 91%, and 91%, respectively, and did not differ significantly by condition |
| 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. Counsellors were blind to condition assignment until after completion of the intake interview |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Follow‐up assessments were conducted by same‐sex interviewers blind to experimental condition |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |