Walton 2010.

Methods	Parallel RCT: computer‐administered brief intervention versus therapist‐administered brief intervention versus brochure on alcohol and violence. ITT: unclear.
Participants	Setting: USA, emergency department. Participants: 14 to 18 years, presenting to emergency department for medical illness or injury with normal vital signs (including trauma patients after initial stabilisation), reporting past‐year alcohol consumption and aggressive behaviour; screened with computerised self‐complete survey plus AUDIT‐C, CRAFFT and Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT); excluded if victim of acute sexual assault, or displaying suicidal ideation, or altered mental status precluded consent, or medical instability (i.e. abnormal vital signs). Number randomised = 726 ;44% male; mean age 16.8 years; 56% African American, 39% White, 7% Hispanic, 5% Other ethnicity; 10% dropped out of school. At baseline: 52% past year binge drinking (≥ 5 drinks), 48% AUDIT‐C => 3, 45% POSIT alcohol score ≥ 2.
Interventions	Computer‐administered brief intervention (CBI) group (N = 237) had one session (median 29 minutes) on an interactive multimedia computer program developed for the study and viewed on tablet laptops with touch screens and audio delivered through headphones, to ensure participant privacy. Therapist‐administered brief intervention (TBI) group (N = 254) received one session (median 37 minutes) from a research therapist who utilised a tablet laptop to provide personalised feedback from the screening and baseline surveys as well as age‐ and sex‐specific normative information. Adolescents completed computerised checklists identifying reasons to stay away from drinking and fighting. Using a preprogrammed algorithm, the computer selected a set of role‐play scenarios based on the participant’s risk behaviours, and the therapist guided the participant. Control group (N = 235) received a brochure containing information on alcohol and violence with community resources including phone numbers.
Outcomes	Per cent with AUDIT‐C ≥ 3, per cent binge drinking (≥ 5 drinks per occasion), per cent with POSIT (Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers) ≥ 2. Assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months.
Funding source	This project was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) grant 014889.
Declaration of interests	Not reported.
Notes	SafERteens study; teenagers Payment: USD 1 for screening; USD 20 for baseline assessment; USD 25 for three month assessment; USD 30 for six month assessment; USD 35 for 12 month assessment; USD 111 in total. Loss to follow‐up at three months: CBI group: 32/237 (14%). TBI group: 39/254 (15%). Control group: 29/235 (12%). Loss to follow‐up at six months: CBI group: 28/237 (12%). TBI group: 45/254 (18%). Control group: 27/235 (11%). Loss to follow‐up at 12 months: CBI group: 36/237 (15%). TBI group: 50/254 (20%). Control group: 33/235 (14%). We contacted the authors, who supplied missing data.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was based on computer‐generated algorithm (p. 528).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Used "numbered sealed envelopes" (p. 528).
Blinding of treatment providers	High risk	Not blinded.
Blinding of participants	Low risk	"Participants were blinded to condition assignment until after the baseline assessment" (p. 528).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Follow‐up staff were blinded to baseline condition assignment" (p. 528).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Loss to follow‐up reported with reasons.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes specified in methods are reported.