Is Brief Motivational Intervention Effective in Reducing Alcohol Use Among Young Men Voluntarily Receiving It? A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heavy drinking is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in young men. Brief motivational intervention (BMI) has shown promising results for young people, but has never been tested in young men in the community who volunteered to receive an intervention. METHODS: We evaluated the effectiveness of BMI in reducing alcohol use among heavy episodic users and in maintaining low-risk drinking among nonheavy episodic users. Participants were French-speaking young men attending the mandatory Swiss army conscription process. They were offered the opportunity to receive a 20-minute BMI, and those interested were randomized into an intervention group (BMI immediately) or into a control group (BMI after the 6-month follow-up assessment, in a waiting list design). Analyses were conducted separately for heavy and nonheavy episodic users (separated using baseline heavy episodic use frequency) as the hypotheses tested were different between both groups (primary vs. secondary prevention intervention). RESULTS: From a pool of 6,085 young men invited to receive BMI, 727 (11.9%) showed up and 572 were included in the study (after exclusions related to organizational aspects of the conscription process). Among nonheavy episodic users, there was a protective effect of BMI on weekly alcohol use (p < 0.05). Among heavy episodic users, there were no significant effects of BMI. CONCLUSIONS: About 12% of young men were interested in addressing their drinking within the BMI framework, suggesting that there is some need for easily accessible alcohol intervention. The present intervention did have a preventive effect among low-risk young drinkers in helping them maintain their patterns of alcohol use. An explanation for the lack of effectiveness among heavy episodic users might be that those individuals interested in BMI had patterns of more severe alcohol use, thereby making change more difficult.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".