Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28879021›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2017

DIAMOND (DIgital Alcohol Management ON Demand): a mixed methods feasibility RCT and embedded process evaluation of a digital health intervention to reduce hazardous and harmful alcohol use.

Fiona L Hamilton, Jo Hornby, Jessica Sheringham, Stuart Linke, Charlotte Ashton, Kevin Moore, Fiona Stevenson, Elizabeth Murray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Fiona L HamiltoneHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Upper 3rd Floor, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3126-5074
Jo HornbyeHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Upper 3rd Floor, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF UK.
Jessica SheringhamDepartment of Applied Health Research, UCL, London, UK.
Stuart LinkeCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Charlotte AshtonCamden and Islington Public Health, London, UK.
Kevin MooreInstitute for Liver and Digestive Health, UCL, London, UK.
Fiona StevensoneHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Upper 3rd Floor, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF UK.
Elizabeth MurrayeHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Upper 3rd Floor, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlcohol is a major risk factor for preventable illness, with huge cost to healthcare economies. There is a role for alcohol-specific digital health interventions (DHI), but there have been few randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing DHI with face-to-face treatment. Such trials are complex and face obstacles in recruitment and retention.

methodsMixed-methods feasibility RCT of an alcohol DHI, testing recruitment, online data-collection and randomisation processes, with an embedded process evaluation. Recruitment ran from October 2014 for 9 months. Participants were adults drinking at hazardous and harmful levels, attending four community drug and alcohol services (CDAS) in London. Participants completed baseline demographic, alcohol-related and other psychological questionnaires online and were randomised to HeLP-Alcohol, a six-module DHI with weekly reminder prompts (phone, email or text message), which mirrors face-to-face treatment, or to face-to-face treatment at CDAS. Alcohol counsellors took part in qualitative interviews at the end of the study.

resultsAlcohol counsellors screened 1253 patients. One thousand one hundred eighty-nine did not meet inclusion criteria so were excluded: 579 were dependent drinkers, 548 had health conditions that made them ineligible to take part and 62 were ineligible for other reasons including homelessness. Of the 64 patients who were eligible to take part, 54 declined to participate, with 36 stating a preference for face-to-face treatment, 13 gave no reason, and 5 gave other reasons including not wanting to use a computer. Ten consented but then 3 changed their minds, so we were able to randomise 7 participants to the study (11% of eligible). Five alcohol counsellors agreed to be interviewed for the process evaluation and provided the following feedback: Although most of their colleagues were enthusiastic about the trial, some were not at equipoise in recruiting; potential participants also declared strong preference to intervention arm from the outset. These factors affected recruitment. Counsellors also lacked time to undertake the data inputting and follow-up of participants in addition to their everyday work.

conclusionsThis feasibility study aimed to test recruitment, randomisation, retention and data collection methods but recruited only 7 participants so these aims were not fully achieved. This illustrates to all researchers of complex interventions the importance of conducting feasibility studies and is generalisable to areas other than alcohol research. CDAS were seeing larger numbers of non-dependent drinkers with complex additional problems than alcohol commissioners expected. CDAS clients and some counsellors were not at equipoise for recruitment. Alternative settings for recruitment need to be explored in future trials.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN31789096, DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN31789096.

Identifiers

PMID28879021
PMCPMC5583751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.