Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39024575›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2024

Evaluating the Acceptability of the Drink Less App and the National Health Service Alcohol Advice Web Page: Qualitative Interview Process Evaluation.

Melissa Oldham, Larisa-Maria Dina, Gemma Loebenberg, Olga Perski, Jamie Brown, Colin Angus, Emma Beard, Robyn Burton, Matt Field, Felix Greaves and 6 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. 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. Observational
  3. The role and reach of alcohol reduction apps.Health affairs scholar · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

16 authors.

Melissa OldhamBehavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3868-2794
Larisa-Maria DinaBehavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2530-2983
Gemma LoebenbergBehavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9927-2839
Olga PerskiHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3285-3174
Jamie BrownBehavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2797-5428
Colin AngusSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0529-4135
Emma BeardBehavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8586-1261
Robyn BurtonAddictions Directorate, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1684-5238
Matt FieldDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7790-5559
Felix GreavesDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9393-3122
Matthew HickmanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9864-459X
Eileen KanerPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7169-9344
Susan MichieCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0063-6378
Marcus R MunafòSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4049-993X
Elena PizzoDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0790-7505
Claire GarnettBehavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6589-299X

Funding

Cancer Research UKMedical Research Council MR/W026430/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe extent to which interventions are perceived as acceptable to users impacts engagement and efficacy.

objectiveIn this study, we evaluated the acceptability of (1) the smartphone app Drink Less (intervention) and (2) the National Health Service (NHS) alcohol advice web page (usual digital care and comparator) among adult drinkers in the United Kingdom participating in a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Drink Less app.

methodsA subsample of 26 increasing- and higher-risk drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score≥8) assigned to the intervention group (Drink Less; n=14, 54%; female: n=10, 71%; age: 22-72 years; White: n=9, 64%) or usual digital care group (NHS alcohol advice web page; n=12, 46%; female: n=5, 42%; age: 23-68 years: White: n=9, 75%) took part in semistructured interviews. The interview questions were mapped on to the 7 facets of acceptability according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Alongside these constructs, we also included a question on perceived personal relevance, which previous research has linked to acceptability and engagement. Framework and thematic analysis of data was undertaken.

resultsThe Drink Less app was perceived as being ethical, easy, user-friendly, and effective for the period the app was used. Participants reported particularly liking the tracking and feedback sections of the app, which they reported increased personal relevance and which resulted in positive affect when achieving their goals. They reported no opportunity cost. Factors such as negative affect when not meeting goals and boredom led to disengagement in the longer term for some participants. The NHS alcohol advice web page was rated as being easy and user-friendly with no opportunity costs. However, the information presented was not perceived as being personally relevant or effective in changing drinking behavior. Most participants reported neutral or negative affect, most participants thought the alcohol advice web page was accessible, and some participants reported ethical concerns around the availability of suggested resources. Some participants reported that it had acted as a starting point or a signpost to other resources. Participants in both groups discussed motivation to change and contextual factors such as COVID-19 lockdowns, which influenced their perceived self-efficacy regardless of their assigned intervention.

conclusionsDrink Less appears to be an acceptable digital intervention among the recruited sample. The NHS alcohol advice web page was generally considered unacceptable as a stand-alone intervention among the recruited sample, although it may signpost and help people access other resources and interventions.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingMobile ApplicationsAdultAgedFemaleHumansInternetInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareState MedicineUnited KingdomYoung Adultacceptabilityalcohol reductiondigital interventionmHealthmobile healthmobile phone

Identifiers

PMID39024575
PMCPMC11294780

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.