Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Moderators of outcome in a web-based substance use intervention for adolescents



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Moderators of outcome in a web-based substance use intervention for adolescents
Author Arnaud
Country
Year 2015
Numbers Pubmed ID: 2016-03749-004

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Effectiveness of a Web-Based Screening and Fully Automated Brief Motivational Intervention for Adolescent Substance Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arnaud N., Baldus C., Elgán TH., De Paepe N., Tønnesen H., Csémy L., Thomasius R. German Centre for Addiction Research in Childhood and Adolescence (DZSKJ), Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. n.arnaud@uke.de. 2016
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



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

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Should this citation be included? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper originate from a primary study of interest? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 16
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 211
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 16.87
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used SUD (not further described, except maybe excluding nicotine)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome? Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 0.71
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • 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 ... Country(ies) name(s) Unclear ... Sweden
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Odds Ratio (OR) 95% CI low 95% CI high
Outcome: pct abstinent for alcohol      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 715 734
Percentage 42.9 40.1


3 months

N Analyzed 715 734 0.57
Percentage 31.3 36.8 0.27
1.20
Within-Arm Comparisons
Comparison Measure MI TAU
--Not Specified--
Outcome: pct abstinent for alcohol      Population: Male
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed
Counts


3 months

N Analyzed
Counts
Odds Ratio (OR) 95% CI low 95% CI high Odds Ratio (OR) 95% CI low 95% CI high
Outcome: pct abstinent for nos      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 715 734
Percentage 49.8 49.6


3 months

N Analyzed 715 734 0.67
Percentage 41.7 39.8 0.31
1.45
95% CI low 95% CI high F 95% CI low 95% CI high Mean Difference (Net)
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 715 734
Mean 1.98 1.93
SD 0.81 0.90
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 715 734 0.02
Mean 1.75 1.93 0.50
SD 0.47 0.90 0.25
SE
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: Male
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 51 49
Mean 5.45 6.00
SD 2.71 3.07


3 months

N Analyzed 51 49
Mean 4.44 6.21
SD 2.92 2.43
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: Female
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 57 54
Mean 5.16 5.09
SD 2.07 2.45


3 months

N Analyzed 57 54
Mean 4.53 4.58
SD 2.52 2.47
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: High risk status
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed nr nr
Mean 6.57 6.81
SD 2.00 2.76


3 months

N Analyzed nr nr
Mean 5.50 6.11
SD 2.60 2.56
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: Low risk status
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed nr nr
Mean 5.40 5.49
SD 2.45 2.79


3 months

N Analyzed nr nr
Mean 4.98 5.55
SD 3.04 2.32
95% CI low 95% CI high Mean Difference (Net)
Outcome: heavy drinking days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 715 734
Mean 1.54 1.58
SD 0.99 1.02
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 715 734 0.01
Mean 1.39 1.42 0.61
SD 0.50 0.47 0.31
SE
Outcome: heavy drinking days      Population: Male
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD


3 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
Outcome: nos use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 715 734
Mean 0.84 0.76
SD 1.15 1.08


3 months

N Analyzed 715 734
Mean 0.70 0.67
SD 0.76 0.71
Outcome: nos use days      Population: Male
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD


3 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
Outcome: nos use days      Population: Female
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD


3 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
Outcome: nos use days      Population: High risk status
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD


3 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD


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 Adjusted
  • 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 35% did not complete brief intervention
  • 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 Per Arnaud-2012-23013141
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment Low Done automatically on line
  • 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. N/A Non-human, Web intervention
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. High Self-reported (into Web portal)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data High 85% loss to follow-up
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.