Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29946479›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2018

DIAMOND (DIgital Alcohol Management ON Demand): a feasibility RCT and embedded process evaluation of a digital health intervention to reduce hazardous and harmful alcohol use recruiting in hospital emergency departments and online.

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

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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 Hamilton1eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, Upper 3rd Floor, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3126-5074
Jo Hornby1eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, Upper 3rd Floor, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF UK.
Jessica Sheringham2Department of Applied Health Research, UCL, London, UK.
Stuart Linke3Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Charlotte AshtonCamden and Islington Public Health, London, UK.
Kevin Moore5Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, UCL, London, UK.
Fiona Stevenson1eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, Upper 3rd Floor, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF UK.
Elizabeth Murray1eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care & 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

backgroundThe harmful use of alcohol is a causal factor in more than 200 disease and injury conditions and leads to over 3 million deaths every year worldwide. Relatively few problem alcohol users access treatment due to stigma and lack of services. Alcohol-specific digital health interventions (DHI) may help them, but trial data comparing DHI with face-to-face treatment are lacking.

methodsWe conducted a feasibility RCT of an alcohol DHI, testing recruitment, online data-collection and randomisation processes, with an embedded process evaluation. Recruitment ran from October 2015 for 12 months. Participants were adults, drinking at hazardous and harmful levels, recruited from hospital emergency departments (ED) in London or recruited online. Participants were randomised to HeLP-Alcohol, a six module DHI with weekly reminder prompts (phone, email or text message), or to face-to-face treatment as usual (TAU). Participants were invited to take part in qualitative interviews after the trial.

resultsThe trial website was accessed 1074 times: 420 people completed online eligibility questionnaires; 350 did not meet eligibility criteria, 51 declined to participate, and 19 were recruited and randomised. Follow-up data were collected from three participants (retention 3/19), and four agreed to be interviewed for the process evaluation. The main themes of the interviews were:Participants were not at equipoise. They wanted to try the website and were disappointed to be randomised to face-to-face, so they were less engaged and dropped out.Other reasons for drop out included not accepting that they had a drink problem; problem drinking interfering with their ability to take part in a trial or forgetting appointments; having a busy life and being randomised to TAU made it difficult to attend appointments.

conclusionsThis feasibility RCT aimed to test recruitment, randomisation, retention, and data collection methods, but recruited only 19 participants. This illustrates the importance of undertaking feasibility studies prior to fully powered RCTs. From the qualitative interviews we found that potential recruits were not at equipoise for recruitment. An alternative methodology, for example a preference RCT recruiting from multiple locations, needs to be explored in future trials.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN31789096.

Identifiers

PMID29946479
PMCPMC6003139

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.