Myths and facts about alcohol use disorder: a Delphi consensus study.

Sophie Hytner, Daphne Josselin, David Belin, Owen Bowden Jones

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Brain communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Sophie HytnerDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, CB2 3EB, Cambridge, UK.

Daphne JosselinDepartment of Psychology, City, University of London, London EC1 V 0HB, UK.

David BelinDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, CB2 3EB, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7383-372X

Owen Bowden JonesDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, CB2 3EB, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Educational interventions that counter myths about alcohol use disorder with facts have the potential to reduce public stigma. Few such interventions have hitherto been rigorously developed. Using a Delphi expert consensus method, this study identified myths and facts to include in an intervention targeting the public stigma of alcohol use disorder. Sixteen UK-based experts (four academics, five clinicians and seven experts-by-experience) completed three sequential online survey rounds. The first round was used alongside a systematic review of the literature on public alcohol use disorder stereotypes to develop 13 myth-fact pairs, which participants quantitively scored in subsequent rounds to determine their importance for inclusion. Pairs reaching consensus (>70% agreement) on high importance (mean score, 7-9) challenged beliefs that alcohol use disorder '

Indexed as

alcohol use disorderanti-stigma interventionsDelphi methodexpert consensuspublic stigma

Identifiers

PMID39926609

DOI10.1093/braincomms/fcaf035

PMCPMC11806414

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.