Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

The effectiveness of a web-based brief alcohol intervention in reducing heavy drinking among adolescents aged 15-20 years with a low educational background: a two-arm parallel group cluster randomized controlled trial.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title The effectiveness of a web-based brief alcohol intervention in reducing heavy drinking among adolescents aged 15-20 years with a low educational background: a two-arm parallel group cluster randomized controlled trial.
Author Voogt CV., Kleinjan M., Poelen EA., Lemmers LA., Engels RC.
Country Radboud University Nijmegen, Behavioural Science Institute, P,O, Box 9104, 6500, HE Nijmegen, the Netherlands. c.voogt@bsi.ru.nl.
Year 2013
Numbers Pubmed ID: 23895403

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


Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 MI web-based brief alcohol intervention
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 TAU control
  • 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) 15
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
20
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 609
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 17.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No active treatment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No active treatment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome? Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 1.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type Cluster randomized 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
    ) |
Upper income
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Pct heavy drinkers      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 318 291
Counts 117 105
Percentage 36.8 36.1


1 months

N Analyzed 318 291
Counts
Percentage 25.3 26.3


6 months

N Analyzed 318 291
Counts
Percentage 29.5 31.5
Outcome: pct binge drinkers      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 318 291
Counts 205 181
Percentage 64.5 62.2


1 months

N Analyzed 318 291
Counts
Percentage


6 months

N Analyzed 318 291
Counts
Percentage 55.3 57.5
Outcome: alcohol drinks      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 318 291
Mean 12.0 11.3
SD 13.9 13.5
SE


1 months

N Analyzed 318 291
Mean 13.2 12.3
SD 16.1 15.0
SE


6 months

N Analyzed 318 291
Mean 12.2 11.7
SD 15.1 14.0
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 No difference reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Co-interventions (performance bias): Performance bias because co-interventions were different across groups Yes None
  • 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 Same
  • 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. Unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data High >50% loss
  • 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.