Longabaugh 2001.

Methods	Parallel RCT: brief intervention versus brief intervention plus booster versus standard care. ITT: yes.
Participants	Setting: USA, emergency department. Participants: English or Spanish speaking, living less than one hour from hospital, aged ≥ 18 years, presenting to emergency department with an injury that did not require hospitalisation; either breath alcohol positive (BAC ≥ 0.003 mg/dl) in emergency department, or reported having ingested alcohol in six hours previous to injury, or AUDIT ≥ 8; excluded if homeless, or under arrest, or psychiatric disorders, or previous diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse Number randomised = 539; 78% male; mean age = 27 years (SD = 9); 72% white, 14% Latino/Hispanic, 10% black, < 1% Asian, < 1% Native American, 3% other; 72% employed At baseline: AUDIT = 12.8; DrInC lifetime negative consequences score = 15.6; mean self‐reported alcohol‐related injuries in previous year = 1.6.
Interventions	BI group (N = 182) received brief intervention by specially trained clinician: one 40‐60 minute session based on motivational interviewing. Began with open‐ended questions about the patient's injury and a possible connection between injury and alcohol use. If the patient assessed said that there was no connection between the present injury and alcohol use, the interventionist broadened the focus to include negative effects the patient had identified on the DrinC as attributed to drinking. The interventionist listened reflectively, provided affirmations, brief summaries and elicited self‐motivational statements. To increase awareness of the pros and cons of the target behaviour, patients were assisted in assessing how their alcohol use compared with a national sample, how much money they spent on alcohol, how many calories they consume because of alcohol use, and positive and negative consequences that may be related to their alcohol use. Patients were assisted in determining whether or not they wanted to change any behaviours and, if so, which behaviours they wished to target. In regard to the target behaviour chosen, patients filled out a decisional balance form indicating the pros and cons of change. Last, with the assistance of the interventionist, the patient completed a change worksheet that listed: (1) "The changes I want to make are"; (2) "The most important reasons why I want to make these changes are"; (3) "The steps I plan to take are"; (4) "The ways other people can help me are"; (5) "I will know my plan is working if" and; (6) "Some things that could interfere with my plan are." The patient was given a copy of the change plan at the end of the session. BIB group (N = 169) received brief intervention (as above) plus a booster session with specially trained clinician 7 to 10 days after BI. Based on motivational interviewing. Participants were encouraged to discuss post‐discharge experiences, particularly in regard to the change plan they had made in the first session. Then they were provided with additional information about their use of alcohol in an effort to help strengthen the change plan. Based upon reported post‐discharge experiences and discussion during the booster session, patients could alter change plans to reflect their experience since the first session. SC group (N = 188) received the customary care that they otherwise would have received in the absence of the research protocol. This consisted of treatment for their injury by the emergency department staff.
Outcomes	Number of heavy drinking days per week; alcohol related injuries; negative consequences from drinking (DrInC). Assessed at 1 year.
Funding source	This study was funded by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant 5R01 AA09835; Richard Longabaugh Principal Investigator.
Declaration of interests	Not reported.
Notes	Loss to follow‐up not reported by arm.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear how randomisation sequence was generated.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Interventionist opened a sealed envelope that revealed treatment assignment (p. 807).
Blinding of treatment providers	High risk	Not blinded.
Blinding of participants	High risk	Not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All data were collected by independent research assistants who were blind to patient treatment assignment (p. 807).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Loss to follow‐up not reported per arm.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes specified in methods are reported.