Schaus 2009.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 3, 6, 9, 12 months Attrition: 35% |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 20.55 Sex: 48% male N participants: 363 Allocation: n = 181 intervention; n = 182 control Setting: college campus; higher risk students Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: brief motivational interviewing Set‐up: 2 individual sessions Key components: intervention combined patient‐centred motivational interviewing techniques and cognitive behavioural skills training Duration: 20 min Control: assessment only |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: alcohol consumption: quantity, frequency, number of days, peak number of drinks; blood alcohol concentration; readiness to change; expectations; harm behaviours Measures: TLFB; Healthy Lifestyle Questionnaire, including Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index and Readiness to Change Questionnaire |
|
| 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) | Low risk | Investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation i.e. using a computer random number generator |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Group assignment was placed into a sealed envelope by the data manager and was not available to those recruiting subjects until after informed consent was obtained |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | High attrition (35%). Missing outcome data have been imputed using appropriate methods, and balanced in number across intervention groups |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All 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 say whether outcome assessors were blind |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |