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

Feldstein 2007.

Methods Design: RCT
Follow‐up: 2 months
Attrition: 7%
Participants Mean age (years): 18.6
Sex: 78.2% female
N participants: 55
Allocation: n = 40 intervention; n = 15 control
Setting: college campus with higher risk students
Country: USA
Interventions Programme type: motivational interviewing
Set‐up: single individual session
Key components: MI with option of general info on alcohol use
Duration: 45 min
Control: assessment only
Outcomes Outcomes: binge drinking; alcohol‐related problems
Measures: Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index; modification of Monitoring the Future study; Working Alliance Inventory; Motivational Interview Treatment Integrity coding system
Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest Funded by University Graduate funding scheme. 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 Using a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences random numbers list
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to make a judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Low attrition (7%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected 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 Low risk Undergraduate assistants blind to randomisation collected follow‐up data
Unit of Analysis issues Low risk Not applicable