Staiger 2011.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial of a brief alcohol intervention programme for adults in residential drug treatment
Participants	N = 166 adults, meeting DSM‐IV diagnostic criteria for substance dependence in the past 12 months, recruited from 2 Therapeutic Communities (TC) in Victoria; average length of residential stay was 8.7 months (21‐974 days) Most were single, male Australians with some high school education. From the table 4 (p28), it would occur that alcohol was the primary problem drug for 22 participants (10 and 12). Also, 89% of the control group, and 90.5% of the experimental group, reported using alcohol in the 3 months prior to intake (p29). Also, 45 had severe alcohol dependency (21 and 24) (p31), as per SADQ (score > 30 indicates severe alcohol dependence).
Interventions	Alcohol intervention group (AIG experimental) vs. Basic education group (EDU control) 1) AIG experimental: Mindfulness‐based Relapse Prevention Responsible Drinking Program, based on the Alcohol Skills Training Program (ASTP, developed for US college students by Marlatt et al.) Designed to progressively build upon a participants' knowledge and skills. Group sessions aimed to equip them to: 1) use mindfulness strategies to manage emotional states, to 2) understand motives and expectations about alcohol, to 3) ensure adequate knowledge of the effects of alcohol and to 4) manage personal and social situations in relation to alcohol use; Basic principles of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (Marsha Linehan) Mindfulness skills training, comprised a key part of the final 3 sessions of the program; A manual guided group facilitators. Facilitators received weekly supervision to monitor and guide their AIG group work. Goups were routinely digitally recorded to ensure fidelity of program content. Participants had a workbook to act as a resource and reminder of program content. A mindfulness exercise CD was created which was included in the workbook provided to the AIG group. 5 group sessions (weekly; 3‐6 weeks after start of residential treatment); plus 2 check in calls, (2 weeks apart) after EXIT, reviewed drinking; plus 6 therapeutic letters, which were mailed to participants at six weekly intervals, whilst they remained in the residential treatment program, and aimed to minimise the reduction of treatment effect over time, reminding clients of the activities, skills and personal goals. 2) EDU control: basic education Semi‐structured Standard drink Effects of alcohol on person Low risk drink guidelines Basic alcohol education (which we manualised in order to standardise that component). Conducted over 2 group sessions (1 week apart) and was similar in content to a drink driving alcohol education. All TC residents were invited to attend the Alcohol Intervention Study as management of the TC did not want those with an alcohol primary problem to be treated differently within a TC setting. We designed the interventions to take into account different drinking goals (i.e. abstinence and moderate drinking); however, the primary focus of the program was on those with a dependent drug problem.
Outcomes	AUDIT SADQ/SADQ‐C (p.31 of the final project report) TLFB‐ 90 days recall SDS (p.32 of the final project report) ASI‐ alcohol (5th edition) Social functioning: Index of OTI Mental health defined as: number of days with significant psychological problem in past month (ASI ‐ single item) Average standard drinks consumed per drinking day in the 90 days prior to each assessment point (Table 8, of the final project report). No of drinking days in the 90 days prior to each assessment point (Table 9). Average days heroin use in the 3 months prior to each assessment point (Table 14).
Notes	Include if authors provide unpublished data for the subsample of AUDIT‐positive participants. Final study report gives results for all participants together, including people with and without alcohol problems. Alcohol was used only by 149 of the 166 participants in the 90 days prior to initial presentation. The full, unpublished report (2010) of this study (Staiger 2009) was considered during the 2017 update of this review and the study is among studies awaiting classification.