Gmel 2013.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 6 months Attrition: 20.4% |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 20.1 Sex: 100% male N participants: 853 Allocation: n = 392 intervention; n = 461 control Setting: army recruitment, all risk levels Country: Switzerland |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: brief motivational interviewing Set‐up: single individual sessions (booster telephone interview at 3 months) Key components: the strategies included were: establish a collaborative rapport to enable elicitation of multiple substance use; ensure confidentiality; ask permission to talk about behaviours; ask with open questions about substance use and focus on areas that the conscript considers problematic; explore pros and cons; reflect and affirm change talk and enhance values that might be incompatible with present substance use; explore the importance, confidence and readiness to change; evoke commitment to a change plan; and support the conscript's self efficacy Duration: 20 min (mean) Control: assessment only |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: % drinkers past 6 months; % risk volume (> 21 drinks/week); % risk RSOD (>once a month); % at risk (either volume or RSOD); number of drinks per week; number of RSOD per month Measures: Quantity‐frequency instrument; Monthly frequency of risky single occasion drinking instrument (RSOD) |
|
| Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | No information or declarations about funding or potential conflicts of interest | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | "[G]enerated via a computerized randomization algorithm by the research team." |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Participants could not foresee assignment |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Borderline low/high risk attrition ‐ rounded down to 20% |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes are 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 | Low risk | Follow‐up assessments were made by staff blinded to the treatment status |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |