Woodall 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: parallel randomised controlled trial
Participants	Participants: incarcerated drink‐driving offenders with AsPD sentenced to a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) treatment programme Sex: (for AsPD subgroup) 45/52 (87%) males; 7/52 (13%) females Age: (for AsPD subgroup) mean = 26.5 years (SD = 7.9) Unit of allocation: individual participant Number randomised: 52 (n = 36 intervention group; n = 16 control group) Number completing: 52 (n = 36 intervention group; n = 16 control group) Setting: prison, single site, USA (New Mexico) Inclusion criteria: court‐defined first offenders sentenced to the Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) treatment programme whilst in prison; diagnosis of AsPD (DSM‐III‐R, Diagnostic Interview Schedule) Exclusion criteria: none reported Ethnicity: (for AsPD subgroup) 37/52 (71%) Native American; 12/52 (23%) Non‐Hispanic white; 3/52 (6%) Hispanic or other Baseline characteristics: 42/52 (89%) met DSM‐III‐R criteria for alcohol dependency using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule; mean DrinC score = 23.8 (SD  9.9); mean number of days drinking in past 30 days = 9.2 (SD 8.4) days; mean number of days in last 30 days when had drank and then driven = 3.9 (SD 5.3) days; mean number of drinks per drinking day = 5.9 (SD 5.1); mean number of days with 5 or more drinks = 5.9 (SD 6.9); mean number of days driving after 5 or more drinks = 2.9 (SD 4.3); Form 90 measures of drinking over past 90 days: total standard ethyl‐alcohol consumption (SEC) = 328.0 (SD 431.3), drinking days = 25.7 (SD 26.3), mean blood alcohol content (BAC) = 0.043 (SD 0.058)
Interventions	Two conditions: 'driving whilst intoxicated' programme (DWI) + incarceration; or incarceration only Experimental group (n = 36 randomised): DWI + incarceration Control group (n = 16 randomised): incarceration only Details of conditions: In the DWI condition, the programme was non‐confrontational and utilised motivational interviewing principles. Components included: alcohol use, abuse and dependence; health and nutrition; psychological effects of alcohol; drinking and driving awareness; stress‐management; goal‐setting and action‐planning for the future; family issues and alcohol; domestic violence; HIV/AIDS prevention; work release programme for those in employment. Also incorporated culturally appropriate elements such as sweat lodges and talking circles (71% of participants were native American). The DWI programme was delivered whilst participants were subject to 28 days incarceration. The control condition was 28 days incarceration Duration of intervention: 28 days Duration of trial: 25 months (1 month of intervention and 24 months of follow‐up) Length of follow‐up: 6, 12 and 24 months Dose adjustment: n/a
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Reconviction: recidivism data Secondary outcomes Substance misuse (alcohol): number of drinks, number of drinking days and mean blood alcohol content; mean number of days driving after drinking in past 30 days; mean number of days driving after 5 or more drinks in past 30 days (via Form 90 and DrInC‐2R questionnaires) Other outcomes None
Notes	Study funding: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Declaration of interests: none
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: No information provided. Insufficient reporting to permit judgement of Yes or No. Clarification has been requested from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: No information provided. Insufficient reporting to permit judgement of Yes or No. Clarification has been requested from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) of participants	Unclear risk	Comment: In a study such as this, full blinding is difficult to achieve because participants would be aware whether or not they were participating in a psychological intervention and may also be aware of the nature of this intervention. The review authors judged that it would thus not be possible to fully blind participants in this type of study. We found no indication of any specific additional measures taken to reduce the risk of bias that might result from differential behaviours by participants.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) of personnel	Unclear risk	Comment: In a study such as this, full blinding is difficult to achieve because personnel would be aware whether or not they were participating in a psychological intervention and may also be aware of the nature of this intervention. The review authors judged that it would thus not be possible to fully blind personnel in this type of study.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) of outcome assessors	Unclear risk	Comment: Insufficient information to allow a judgement to be made. Clarification about blinding of outcome assessors has been requested from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: For the outcome of self‐reported drink‐driving behaviour, data missing for 6/36 (17%) of the intervention group and for 3/16 (19%) of control group. Although these numbers appear similar, reasons for this missing data were not provided.  For the outcome of alcohol use, the amount of missing self‐report data was not reported but review authors judged it reasonable to assume that the above figures also applied to this as it was measured similarly. For the outcome of drink‐driving recidivism, it was unclear what numbers of missing data occurred in the AsPD subgroup, although for the entire sample missing data on this item was reported as 31/305 (10%). Clarification has been requested from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: Study protocol was not available but it seemed clear that the published report included all expected outcomes. No evidence of selective reporting. All prospectively stated outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Comment: In terms of baseline imbalance, the intervention group was significantly more likely to have histories of drinking and driving in comparison with the controls, although it was unclear if this applied to the AsPD subgroup.