Effects of a waiting list control design on alcohol consumption among online help-seekers: A randomised controlled trial

IF 3.9 2区医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Drug and alcohol dependence Pub Date : 2024-08-11 DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112409

{"title":"Effects of a waiting list control design on alcohol consumption among online help-seekers: A randomised controlled trial","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Indirect evidence suggests that using waiting list control designs in behavioural research may have unintended consequences. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of a waiting list design on alcohol consumption among individuals who had looked online for help.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A two-arm randomised controlled trial was employed. The intervention group was informed that they belonged to the intervention group and would receive immediate access to a digital alcohol intervention. The waiting list control group was informed that they belonged to the group that had to wait four weeks to be given access to the intervention and in the meantime, they would be given a summary of their drinking. However, both groups received immediate access to the same digital alcohol intervention; the experimental contrast was thus between being told to wait or not.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We randomised 3388 participants (intervention: 1692, waiting list: 1696). Data were available for 954 participants at 1-month follow-up. We found no strong evidence that alcohol consumption differed between groups, but the evidence pointed towards the intervention group reporting lowering weekly alcohol consumption compared to the waiting list control group (IRR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83; 1.08, probability of effect = 78.8 %).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We found no strong evidence that being informed that access to an intervention would be delayed produced differential self-reported alcohol consumption compared to being informed that access would be immediate. We did find a difference in engagement with the intervention materials, indicating that the experimental manipulation was successful.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11322,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871624013346/pdfft?md5=8c6f73a4776b97aca84d6dad75ab6c78&pid=1-s2.0-S0376871624013346-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871624013346","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Indirect evidence suggests that using waiting list control designs in behavioural research may have unintended consequences. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of a waiting list design on alcohol consumption among individuals who had looked online for help.

Methods

A two-arm randomised controlled trial was employed. The intervention group was informed that they belonged to the intervention group and would receive immediate access to a digital alcohol intervention. The waiting list control group was informed that they belonged to the group that had to wait four weeks to be given access to the intervention and in the meantime, they would be given a summary of their drinking. However, both groups received immediate access to the same digital alcohol intervention; the experimental contrast was thus between being told to wait or not.

Results

We randomised 3388 participants (intervention: 1692, waiting list: 1696). Data were available for 954 participants at 1-month follow-up. We found no strong evidence that alcohol consumption differed between groups, but the evidence pointed towards the intervention group reporting lowering weekly alcohol consumption compared to the waiting list control group (IRR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83; 1.08, probability of effect = 78.8 %).

Conclusion

We found no strong evidence that being informed that access to an intervention would be delayed produced differential self-reported alcohol consumption compared to being informed that access would be immediate. We did find a difference in engagement with the intervention materials, indicating that the experimental manipulation was successful.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

候补名单控制设计对在线求助者饮酒量的影响：随机对照试验

背景间接证据表明，在行为研究中使用候补名单对照设计可能会产生意想不到的后果。本研究旨在估算等待名单设计对曾在网上寻求帮助的人的酒精消费的影响。干预组被告知他们属于干预组，将立即接受数字酒精干预。等待名单对照组被告知，他们属于需要等待四周才能获得干预服务的一组，在此期间，他们将获得一份饮酒情况总结。然而，两组都能立即获得相同的数字酒精干预；因此，实验对比的是被告知等待与否。954名参与者在1个月的随访中获得了数据。我们没有发现强有力的证据表明各组之间的酒精消耗量存在差异，但有证据表明，与等待名单对照组相比，干预组报告的每周酒精消耗量有所降低（IRR = 0.95，95 % CI = 0.83; 1.08，效应概率 = 78.8 %）。结论我们没有发现强有力的证据表明，与被告知将立即接受干预相比，被告知将延迟接受干预会产生不同的自我报告酒精消耗量。我们确实发现了参与干预材料的差异，这表明实验操作是成功的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Drug and alcohol dependence 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

7.40

自引率

7.10%

发文量

409

审稿时长

41 days

期刊介绍： Drug and Alcohol Dependence is an international journal devoted to publishing original research, scholarly reviews, commentaries, and policy analyses in the area of drug, alcohol and tobacco use and dependence. Articles range from studies of the chemistry of substances of abuse, their actions at molecular and cellular sites, in vitro and in vivo investigations of their biochemical, pharmacological and behavioural actions, laboratory-based and clinical research in humans, substance abuse treatment and prevention research, and studies employing methods from epidemiology, sociology, and economics.