Terlecki 2010 VOLUNTARY.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 4 weeks after intervention, (6 weeks from baseline for control) Attrition: 18% (estimate) |
|
| Participants |
Age (years): 18–24 Sex: 62% male N participants: 41 voluntary students Allocation: n = 22 intervention n = 19 control Setting: college; heavier drinkers Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: brief motivational interviewing Set‐up: single individual session Key components: The intervention covered the following topics in each session: evaluation of typical drinking patterns as recorded on the alcohol monitoring and baseline assessments of drinking behaviour; comparison of typical patterns of alcohol use and perceived norms to actual campus norms of same‐age peers; review of the biphasic effects of alcohol; personalised review of drinking consequences; and placebo and tolerance effects of alcohol Duration: 50 min Control: assessment only |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: harmful and hazardous drinking; physical dependence on alcohol (family history of alcohol problems, history of conduct disorder, and personal drinking history); alcohol‐related negative consequences; average weekly drinking frequency and quantity over the last month; drinking behaviour in terms of quantity and frequency of their alcohol consumption on a typical occasion and peak drinking occasion within the past month Measures: Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test; Alcohol Dependence Scale; the Brief Drinker Profile; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Inventory; Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Quantity/Frequency Index |
|
| Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | Funded by NIAAA. No information about potential conflicts | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Participants were assigned to treatment conditions using computer‐based urn randomisation to ensure matching on sex and current Greek membership status |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Attrition not directly indicated but possibly around 18%; missing data at the 12‐month follow‐up assessment did not significantly exceed the projected 30% (32% was missing) and as a result, missing outcome data were not imputed for any follow‐up assessment period to protect the integrity of the analyses |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All pre‐specified outcomes are reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not possible to blind participants to intervention. Study interventionist was not blind to treatment assignment or study hypotheses |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |