Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24072758›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science2013

Alcohol assessment and feedback by email for university students: main findings from a randomised controlled trial.

Jim McCambridge, Marcus Bendtsen, Nadine Karlsson, Ian R White, Per Nilsen, Preben Bendtsen

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Jim McCambridgeJim McCambridge, PhD, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Marcus Bendtsen, MSc, Department of Medicine and Health, and Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; Nadine Karlsson, PhD, Department of Medicine and Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; Ian R. White, PhD, MRC, Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK; Per Nilsen, PhD, Preben Bendtsen, PhD, Department of Medicine and Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Marcus Bendtsen
Nadine Karlsson
Ian R White
Per Nilsen
Preben Bendtsen

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105260558Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT086516MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrief interventions can be efficacious in changing alcohol consumption and increasingly take advantage of the internet to reach high-risk populations such as students.

aimsTo evaluate the effectiveness of a brief online intervention, controlling for the possible effects of the research process.

methodA three-arm parallel groups design was used to explore the magnitude of the feedback and assessment component effects. The three groups were: alcohol assessment and feedback (group 1); alcohol assessment only without feedback (group 2); and no contact, and thus neither assessment nor feedback (group 3). Outcomes were evaluated after 3 months via an invitation to participate in a brief cross-sectional lifestyle survey. The study was undertaken in two universities randomising the email addresses of all 14 910 students (the AMADEUS-1 study, trial registration: ISRCTN28328154).

resultsOverall, 52% (n = 7809) of students completed follow-up, with small differences in attrition between the three groups. For each of the two primary outcomes, there was one statistically significant difference between groups, with group 1 having 3.7% fewer risky drinkers at follow-up than group 3 (P = 0.006) and group 2 scoring 0.16 points lower than group 3 on the three alcohol consumption questions from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) (P = 0.039).

conclusionsThis study provides some evidence of population-level benefit attained through intervening with individual students.

Indexed as

Feedback, PsychologicalUniversitiesAdolescentAdultAlcohol DrinkingBinge DrinkingElectronic MailFemaleHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisInternetMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareStudentsSwedenYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24072758
PMCPMC3814613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.