Moore 2011.

Methods	Parallel RCT: brief intervention versus general health booklet. ITT: yes.
Participants	Setting: USA, primary care clinics. Participants: ≥ 55 years, English or Spanish speaking, presenting for any reason to participating clinicians and reporting consumption of at least one alcoholic drink in the previous week; screened with the Comorbidity Alcohol Risk Evaluation Tool (CARET); excluded if they could not hear the screening questions, were too ill to participate or had received treatment for an alcohol use disorder in the prior three months. Number randomised = 631; 71% male; mean age = 68.4 years, age range 55 to 89 years; 88% White, 9% Hispanic, 3% Other ethnicity; 23% high school or less, 31% some college, 46% college degree or more; 74% retired or homemaker, 26% employed full or part time At baseline: mean 15.2 drinks in previous seven days; 34% had a heavy drinking day in previous seven days (≥ 4 drinks per day); 24% binge drinkers (≥ 4 drinks per occasion).
Interventions	Intervention group (N = 310) received one session of one to five minutes from the primary care provider, followed by three sessions of 40 minutes, 20 minutes and 20 minutes respectively from a health educator. At the baseline visit, the research assistant informed intervention group participants that the study focused on healthy drinking behaviours and they were asked to sign a second informed consent form describing additional procedures. Before seeing the primary care practitioner (PCP), the research assistant handed each participant a personalised report and drinking diary to keep track of alcohol use. A similar version of the report was given to the PCP. The reports outlined participants’ alcohol‐associated risks identified by the CARET (e.g. drinking two drinks daily and taking a sedative) and potential consequences (e.g. increased sedation and falls). The PCP gave the participant oral and written advice (in prescription‐style format on an alcohol education booklet). At two, four and eight weeks after the baseline visit, a health educator called participants to provide additional feedback and counselling using motivational interviewing techniques to help reduce alcohol consumption. Control group (N = 321) received a health information booklet outlining recommended behaviours for alcohol use, nutrition, exercise, medication use and smoking. Research assistants encouraged participants to read the booklet and discuss it with their PCPs.
Outcomes	Per cent scoring one to seven on CARET, per cent with one or more heavy drinking days in past seven days, number of drinks in past seven days, CARET risk score range. Assessed at 3 and 12 months.
Funding source	This study was supported by R01 AA013937, K23 AA00270, and K24 AA15957 (awarded to Dr Moore) from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, P30AG021684 from the National Institute on Aging (Dr Moore), P30MH082760 from the National Institute of Mental Health (Dr Tang), the Medical Student Training in Aging Program, funded by the National Institute on Aging (T35 AG026736), and the John A. Hartford Foundation (Ms Gill and Ms Chen), Special Fellowship in Advanced Geriatrics, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (Dr Lin). Data management activities were supported by the UCLA Claude Pepper Older Americans Independence Center funded by the National Institute on Aging (P30AG028748). The sponsor provided financial support for the study only and had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the study; or in the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.
Declaration of interests	Declarations of interest: none.
Notes	Healthy Living As You Age (HLAYA) trial; elderly drinkers. Loss to follow‐up at 3 months: Intervention group: 64/310 (21%). Control group: 12/321 (4%). Loss to follow‐up at 12 months: Intervention group: 88/310 (28%). Control group: 22/321 (7%).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Assignment information was prepared "at the study coordinating center using a computer‐generated set of random numbers" (p. 113).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Research assistants used consecutively numbered, sealed opaque envelopes" (p. 113).
Blinding of treatment providers	Low risk	Treatment providers were not involved in randomisation or allocation and were alerted only when they had intervention patient (although they had appointments with all participants).
Blinding of participants	Low risk	"To mask the true purpose of the study to potential participants before randomisation occurred, questions on seat belt use, exercise, diet and smoking were asked" (p. 114).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Research assistants, blinded to treatment allocation, conducted all baseline and follow‐up outcome assessments" (p. 114).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Loss to follow‐up reported with reasons, but large difference between control and intervention group.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Mentions re‐administering the 7‐day alcohol timeline follow‐back, questions on self‐rated health status, ability to perform strenuous activities (p. 114) but does not report in results.