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

Nirenberg 2013.

Methods Design: RCT
Follow‐up: 6 months
Attrition: 7%
Participants Mean age (years): 17.9
Sex: 69% male
N participants:990
Allocation: n = 323 MI plus a hospital trauma centre visit/exposure (MI‐H); n = 332 MI; n = 335 control
Setting: Court referred 16‐21 year olds as part of their community service sanctions for high‐risk driving and/or alcohol/other drug charges
Country: USA
Interventions Programme type: MI
Set‐up: 4 group sessions, 1 individual session, and a community service experience. 2 MI groups: 1 (MI) received MI as described above; the other received MI‐H. The 2 MI groups were combined for analysis and compared with counselling service only (CS)
Key components: stressed the pivotal role of the participant in the decision to change behaviour, the locus of control for change resting with the youth, and the non‐judgmental role of the counsellor
Duration: 19 h
Control: alternative intervention
Outcomes Outcomes: drinking in a hazardous manner
Measures: modified AUDIT
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 permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Attrition 7%
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All alcohol outcomes 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