Skip to main content
. 2016 Jul 18;2016(7):CD007025. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007025.pub4

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