Schmiege 2009.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 3, 6, 9, 12 months Attrition: 35% |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 15.8 Sex: 83% male N participants: 484 Allocation: n = 157 GPI n = 165 GPI+GMET; n = 162 control Setting: detention facility; higher risk participants Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: group motivational enhancement therapy Type: single group session Key components: MET style to facilitate a group discussion that was designed to be empathic, open, and non‐confrontational to encourage motivation to change alcohol use behaviour in the context of sexual activity. Participants were then given printed feedback regarding their alcohol use behaviour on the basis of their pre‐test responses to questions Duration: 2‐4 h Control: assessment only |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: Risky Sexual Behaviour Index and a measure addressing the co‐occurrence of alcohol use with sexual behaviour Measures: risky sexual behaviour index; Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; Rutgers Alcohol Problems Inventory |
|
| Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | Funded by NIAAA. No information or declarations about potential conflicts of interest | |
| Notes | Bryan et al (2009) report longer‐term outcomes but insufficient information to include in MA; author contacted for more details | |
| 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 | High risk | High attrition (35%). Mplus to test models using a full information (direct) maximum likelihood estimator, which addresses data that display levels of missingness |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All expected outcomes reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Adolescents were instructed that they would be randomly assigned to 1 of 3 possible educational sessions, although they were kept blind to the precise nature of each condition and to the study hypotheses. Not possible to blind personnel |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |