Fromme 2004 VOLUNTARY.
Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 1, 6 months Attrition: 27% at 1 month and 51% at 6 month |
|
Participants |
Mean age (years): 19.26 Sex: 59% male N participants: 452 Allocation: not reported, though n = 285 intervention and n = 118 controls were included in the analysis Setting: university, all risk levels Country: USA |
|
Interventions |
Programme type: Lifestyle Management Class (LMC) with brief motivational interviewing components Set‐up: 1 individual session Key components: change in drinking, negative consequences of intoxication, driving after drinking, and motivation for making behavioural changes Duration: 75 min Control: assessment only |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes: typical weekly drinking; monitored weekly drinking; heavy drinking composite, DUI composite; past month negative consequences Measures: University of Rhode Island Change Assessment; Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Positive and Negative Consequences Experienced Questionnaire; Drinking after Driving question, Past week monitorisation alcohol card; adherence and quality of the LMC co‐leaders |
|
Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | Research Supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. No information or declarations about potential conflicts of interest | |
Notes | Results combined for professional and peer‐led intervention groups as there were no differences between these groups. Results reported separately for mandated and voluntary groups. Only 1 month outcomes reported and included in MA | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | High attrition (27%); missing cases analyses used |
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 |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |