Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21998626›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2011

Can simply answering research questions change behaviour? Systematic review and meta analyses of brief alcohol intervention trials.

Jim McCambridge, Kypros Kypri

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03817255 (Identification of Excessive Substance Use to Encourage Behaviour Change Among Young People in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 146 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03817255 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Identification of Excessive Substance Use to Encourage Behaviour Change Among Young People in Primary Care: Pilot Study in Preparation for a Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Geneva, SwitzerlandRan2018 to 2018Enrolled29ConditionsAdolescent Behavior, Substance UseArmsSubstance use questionnaire, Physical activity
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

146 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Brief interventions for illicit drug use among peripartum women.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2014
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jim McCambridgeDepartment of Public Health & Policy, Centre for Research on Drugs & Health Behaviour, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. Jim.McCambridge@lshtm.ac.uk
Kypros Kypri

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 086516MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipant reports of their own behaviour are critical for the provision and evaluation of behavioural interventions. Recent developments in brief alcohol intervention trials provide an opportunity to evaluate longstanding concerns that answering questions on behaviour as part of research assessments may inadvertently influence it and produce bias. The study objective was to evaluate the size and nature of effects observed in randomized manipulations of the effects of answering questions on drinking behaviour in brief intervention trials. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsMultiple methods were used to identify primary studies. Between-group differences in total weekly alcohol consumption, quantity per drinking day and AUDIT scores were evaluated in random effects meta-analyses. Ten trials were included in this review, of which two did not provide findings for quantitative study, in which three outcomes were evaluated. Between-group differences were of the magnitude of 13.7 (-0.17 to 27.6) grams of alcohol per week (approximately 1.5 U.K. units or 1 standard U.S. drink) and 1 point (0.1 to 1.9) in AUDIT score. There was no difference in quantity per drinking day. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Answering questions on drinking in brief intervention trials appears to alter subsequent self-reported behaviour. This potentially generates bias by exposing non-intervention control groups to an integral component of the intervention. The effects of brief alcohol interventions may thus have been consistently under-estimated. These findings are relevant to evaluations of any interventions to alter behaviours which involve participant self-report.

Indexed as

BehaviorSelf ReportAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholismCounselingHumans

Identifiers

PMID21998626
PMCPMC3187747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.