Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

A brief motivational interview in a pediatric emergency department, plus 10-day telephone follow-up, increases attempts to quit drinking among youth and young adults who screen positive for problematic drinking.



Key Questions Addressed
1 Evidence map
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title A brief motivational interview in a pediatric emergency department, plus 10-day telephone follow-up, increases attempts to quit drinking among youth and young adults who screen positive for problematic drinking.
Author Bernstein J., Heeren T., Edward E., Dorfman D., Bliss C., Winter M., Bernstein E.
Country Youth Alcohol Prevention Center and the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Year 2010
Numbers Pubmed ID: 20670329

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 MI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 TAU Standard assessed control
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Should this citation be included? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Reasons for rejection RCT, N < 10 per group
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT, N < 10 per group
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT, N < 10 per group
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT, N < 10 per group
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper originate from a primary study of interest? ... Study name, e.g. INCANT ... RAP
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 14
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
21
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 853
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome? Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Physical health
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Is any arm a brief intervention (or single session)? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Income level of country(ies) of origin Upper income
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

Mean 6.7 6.1
N Analyzed 283 284
SD 6.6 6.0


3 months

Mean 5.5 5.7
SD 4.5 4.5
N Analyzed 202 197


12 months

Mean 4.9 5.1
SD 4.5 4.5
N Analyzed 207 209
P-Value P-Value P-Value
Outcome: drinks per drinking day      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

Mean 5 4.6 0.165
SD 2.7 2.7
N Analyzed 283 284


3 months

Mean 4.3 4 0.366
SD 2.7 2.7
N Analyzed 202 197


12 months

Mean 3.5 3.5 0.992
SD 2.7 2.7
N Analyzed 207 209
P-Value P-Value P-Value
Outcome: heavy drinking days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

Mean 3.1 2.7
SD 5.0 4.0
N Analyzed 283 284


3 months

Mean 3.9 4.5 0.236
SD 3.6 3.6
N Analyzed 202 197


12 months

Mean 4 3.7 0.551
SD 3.6 3.6
N Analyzed 207 209


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias): Selection bias due to dissimilarity at baseline for the most important prognostic indicators Yes Some differences, but on minor items only
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Co-interventions (performance bias): Performance bias because co-interventions were different across groups Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups No Data
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias): Detection bias because important outcomes were not measured at the same time across groups Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Additional Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Random sequence generation (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study. High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data High ~30%
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
Guideline Used Overall Rating