SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Davies EL, Lonsdale AJ, Hennelly SE, Winstock AR, Foxcroft DR. Alcohol Alcohol. 2017; 52(6): 671-676.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, Social Work and Public Health, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Oxford University Press)

DOI

10.1093/alcalc/agx051

PMID

29016711

Abstract

AIM: To assess the effectiveness of two personalized digital interventions (OneTooMany and Drinks Meter) compared to controls.

METHOD: Randomized controlled trial (AEARCTR-0,001,082). Volunteers for the study, aged 18-30, were randomly allocated to one of two interventions or one of two control groups and were followed up 4 weeks later. Primary outcomes were AUDIT-C, drinking harms and pre-loading. Drinks Meter provided participants with brief screening and advice for alcohol in addition to normative feedback, information on calories consumed and money spent. OneTooMany presented a series of socially embarrassing scenarios that may occur when drinking, and participants were scored according to if/how recently they had been experienced.

RESULTS: The study failed to recruit and obtain sufficient follow-up data to reach a prior estimated power for detecting a difference between groups and there was no indication in the analysable sample of 402 subjects of a difference on the primary outcome measures (Drinks Meter; AUDIT-C IRR = 0.98 (0.89-1.09); Pre-loading IRR = 1.01 (0.95-1.07); Harms IRR = 0.97 (0.79-1.20); OneTooMany; AUDIT-C IRR = 0.96 (0.86-1.07); Pre-loading IRR = 0.99 (0.93-1.06); Harms IRR = 1.16 (0.94-1.43).

CONCLUSION: Further research is needed on the efficacy of such instruments and their ingredients. However, recruitment and follow-up are a challenge.


Language: en

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print