Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT
Author Emma L Giles, Grant J McGeechan, Simon Coulton, Paolo Deluca, Colin Drummond, Denise Howel, Eileen Kaner, Elaine McColl, Ruth McGovern, Stephanie Scott, Elaine Stamp, Harry Sumnall, Liz Todd, Luke Vale, Viviana Albani, Sadie Boniface, Jennifer Ferguson, Eilish Gilvarry, Nadine Hendrie, Nicola Howe, Helen Mossop, Amy Ramsay, Grant Stanley and Dorothy Newbury-Birch
Country -- Not Found --
Year 2019
Numbers Pubmed ID: 31067018

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


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

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Should this citation be included? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 14
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
15
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 443
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NR
  • 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
    ) |
Substance-related problems or symptoms scale
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
QoL functional outcomes scale
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) nr
  • 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 Upper income
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure TAU MI Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


12 months

N Analyzed 196 178 -0.4
Mean 93 92.1 -2.2
SD 7.4 9.1 1.5
SE
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high
Outcome: heavy drinking days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure TAU MI Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


12 months

N Analyzed 196 178 0.3
Mean 1.5 1.8 -0.1
SD 1.7 2.2 0.7
SE
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high
Outcome: RAPI      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure TAU MI Comparison Measure ERROR vs. ERROR


0 months

N Analyzed 225 207
Mean 6.5 8.1
SD 8.7 9.9
SE


12 months

N Analyzed 197 181 0.2
Mean 4.0 4.5 -0.8
SD 4.8 5.3 1.2
SE
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high
Outcome: WEMWBS      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure TAU MI Comparison Measure ERROR vs. ERROR


0 months

N Analyzed 207 194
Mean 46.4 45.4
SD 11.4 12
SE


12 months

N Analyzed 194 178 1.7
Mean 48.6 48.9 -0.8
SD 9.4 9.0 1.2
SE


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias): Selection bias due to dissimilarity at baseline for the most important prognostic indicators Yes
  • 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 Yes
  • 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 High
  • 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. High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low 16% LTFU
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting Unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.