Turrisi 2009.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 10 months Attrition: 14% |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 17.92 Sex: 44.4% male N participants:1275 Allocation: n = 277 intervention; n = 340 control Setting: university; student athletes identified as higher risk Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: brief motivational interviewing Set‐up: single individual session Key components: provision of personalised feedback and discussion of alcohol norms, alcohol expectancies, negative consequences, and protective behavioural strategies and skills, delivered in a motivational‐enhancement style Duration: 45‐60 min Control: assessment only |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: peak blood alcohol content; maximum drinks consumed on an occasion within the past 30 days; number of hours they spent drinking on that occasion; number of drinks they consumed on each day of a typical week; total number of drinks during a typical week.; alcohol‐related consequences; consumption, weekly and peak blood alcohol concentration Measures: Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index |
|
| 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 | Participants were randomised using a computerised algorithm. The computerised algorithm used simple randomisation, drawing 1 of 4 numbers corresponding to the 4 conditions on a random basis as the participants’ data were submitted |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | The amount of missing data as a result of attrition was low (14%) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All pre‐specified 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 make a judgement |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |