Wagener 2012.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 10 weeks Attrition: 7% |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 20.9 Sex: 55% male N participants: 76 Allocation: n = 37 intervention; n = 39 control Setting: Midwestern university; all students Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: MI Set‐up: individual single session Key components: students interacted with an all‐inclusive, interactive programme called the Drinking Assessment and Feedback Tool for College Students (DrAFT‐CS). The DrAFT‐CS covered alcohol use behaviours, consequences, and perceived norms followed immediately by on‐screen personalised feedback. The personalised feedback included quantity and frequency of use; typical and peak blood alcohol levels achieved on drinking occasions; perceptions of social norms; dependence criteria; alcohol‐related problems experienced; financial and caloric costs of alcohol use; familial risk for alcohol problems; perceptions of risk; alcohol expectancies; psychological problems, such as depression and anxiety, that may exacerbate or contribute to alcohol abuse; and motivation for changing current alcohol use. The face‐to‐face group received feedback regarding their assessment from an advanced graduate student who had completed 30 h of training in MI and 6 h of training in using the style with this specific feedback intervention Duration: 60‐90 min Control: assessment only |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: alcohol consumption; alcohol‐related problems Measures: modified version of the Daily Drinking Questionnaire; the Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (B‐YAACQ) |
|
| Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | Funded by Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. 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 | Students were randomly assigned, using a computerised random number generator |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Low attrition (7%) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All pre‐specified outcomes were reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not possible to blind participants to intervention. Insufficient information to make 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 |