Juarez 2006.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 2 months Attrition: 27% |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 19.4 Sex: 47% male N participants: 122 Allocation: not reported Setting: college; higher risk students Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: motivational interviewing Set‐up: motivational interviewing: single individual session; motivational interviewing plus feedback: 2 individual sessions Key components: decisional balance, readiness to change, drinking consequences. Feedback: student’s alcohol consumption, alcohol‐related consequences and risk, peak blood alcohol concentration, social norms Duration: motivational interiewing 40‐60 min; motivational interviewing with feedback 60‐80 min Control: alternative intervention |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: number of drinks per day; peak blood alcohol concentration; alcohol‐related consequences; symptoms of alcohol dependence Measures: Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index; Short Alcohol Dependence Data |
|
| 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) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | High attrition (27%). 1 participant failed to complete but did follow‐up, included in analysis because her inclusion did not change results. Loss to follow‐up of 32 (73%) who did not differ in terms of demographics and alcohol or between groups |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All pre‐specified outcomes are 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 | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make judgement |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |