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

Murphy 2001.

Methods Design: RCT
Follow‐up: 3 months, 9 months
Attrition: 20%
Participants Mean age (years): 19.60
Sex: 54% female
N participants: 99
Allocation: n = 25 education; n = 30 BASICS; n = 24 control
Setting: university; higher risk students
Country: USA
Interventions Programme type: motivational interviewing
Set‐up: individual single session
Key components: personalised feedback sheet created from initial assessment data: information regarding the student's drinking patterns relative to normative college student drinking, blood alcohol concentrations, alcohol‐related problems, and risk factors. Clinicians adopted an empathic and non‐confrontational approach while highlighting risks associated with the student's alcohol consumption and inquiring about the impact of heavy drinking on the student's other life goals
Duration: 50 min
Control: alternative intervention
Outcomes Outcomes: drinks per week; drinking days per week; binge drinking per week; alcohol‐related problems
Measures: Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index
Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest No information. 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 permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Attrition 20%. Missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods: using the baseline value for that measure as the predictor for missing data at 3 months and the 3‐month value as the predictor for missing data at 9 months
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes including those pre‐specified were 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 permit judgement
Unit of Analysis issues Low risk Not applicable