Walton 2010.
| Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 3, 6, 12 months Attrition: 15% at 12 months |
|
| Participants |
Mean age (years): 16.8 Sex: 44% male N participants: 726 Allocation: n = 237 computerised BMI; n = 254 therapist BMI; n = 235 control Setting: hospital emergency department; higher risk patients Country: USA |
|
| Interventions |
Programme type: brief motivational interviewing Set‐up: individual single session Key components: included goals, personalised feedback for alcohol, violence, and weapon carriage, decisional balance exercise for the potential benefit of staying away from drinking and fighting, tailored roleplays (e.g. anger management, conflict resolution, alcohol refusals, not drinking and driving), and referral Duration: not stated Control: pamphlet with community resources |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes: alcohol use frequency; quantity (on a typical occasion); binge drinking (≥ 5 drinks); alcohol consequences Measures: Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers; Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption |
|
| Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | Funded by NIAAA. Authors declare no financial or competing interests | |
| Notes | Only therapist BMI and control group used in MA. 12 month results included in MA | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Randomisation was stratified by sex and age (14‐15 or 16‐18 years) and assigned based on computer‐generated algorithm. Randomisation occurred in blocks of 21 (7 per group) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Assigned based on computer‐generated algorithm |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Low attrition (15%). A single imputation procedure was used to complete missing alcohol misuse scores for 5 participants |
| 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 | Low risk | Follow‐up staff were blinded to baseline condition assignment |
| Unit of Analysis issues | Low risk | Not applicable |