Table 2.
Intervention effect of CETA on unhealthy alcohol use
| AUDIT (α = 0.63) | BI (N = 56) | BI + CETA (N = 62) | Between group treatment effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean change from baseline | Mean | Mean change from baseline | Difference in mean change | Cohen’s d | |
| (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | ||
| Baseline | 21.5 | – | 21.7 | – | – | – |
| (19.7 to 23.3) | (20.0 to 23.5) | |||||
| 6-month follow-up | 11.0 | − 10.5*** | 8.0 | − 13.7*** | − 3.2* | 0.48 |
| (9.2 to 12.8) | (− 12.8 to − 8.3) | (6.3 to 9.7) | (− 15.8 to − 11.6) | (− 6.2 to − 0.1) | ||
AUDIT Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
***p < 0.001
α = Cronbach’s Alpha for internal reliability
Estimates for means, 95% CIs, mean change from baseline, difference in mean change are based on predicted values from mixed effects model
Cohen’s d effect size is calculated by dividing the predicted difference in mean change from the mixed effects model by the pooled baseline SD
Model included fixed effects of treatment arm, time, and interaction terms of treatment X time as well as random effects of participant ID and counselor ID.