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 |