Horner 2010.

Methods	Design: RCT Follow‐up: 1 and 3 months Attrition: 43%
Participants	Age (range): 18‐22 years Sex: 68.6% male N participants: 150 Allocation: n = 40 BMI intervention; n = 42 control ; n = 66 other intervention Setting: university; higher risk students Country: USA
Interventions	Programme type: brief motivational interviewing Set‐up: 2 individual sessions (students randomised to BMI attended their initial treatment session immediately following completion of the pre‐assessment questionnaires. The second BMI intervention session was then scheduled within 7‐10 days from the initial meeting and was conducted by the same therapist. Key components: participants' current and past drinking experiences, including the circumstances that led to the violation of the University regulations, history of any other significant alcohol‐related consequences or prior treatment, and the individual’s family history of substance use and mental health. Participants were also asked to provide information about their academic major, career plans, non‐alcohol related activities they engage in regularly for relaxation and stress reduction, as well as spiritual or religious beliefs and practices Duration: session lasted 40‐60 min Control: no intervention or other intervention
Outcomes	Outcomes: alcohol consumption variables, readiness to change, and problems experienced due to drinking, total number of drinking days per week; total number of drinks per week; peak alcohol use; consequences experienced that indicate alcohol dependence; personal consequences; or social consequences. Measures: measures of alcohol use: Daily Drinking Questionnaire, Frequency‐Quantity Questionnaire; measures of perceived consequences related to alcohol use: Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index; measure of motivation to change: Readiness Ruler
Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest	None stated
Notes	Insufficient details contained in dissertation for study to be included in MA. Author contacted for more information.
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	Attrition: 43%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All data reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible to blind participants to intervention or therapists
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a judgement
Unit of Analysis issues	Low risk	Not applicable