Methodological issues in the evaluation of Internet‐based interventions for problem drinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of Internet-based interventions (IBI) for alcohol problems and other addictive behaviours. However, it is risky to assume interventions that have been found to work in face-to-face modalities can be translated into IBI that are equally effective. DESIGN AND METHODS: Using selected examples from the published works, this paper will identify some of the special considerations that are relevant to the evaluation of IBI. In addition, methodological issues found in the ongoing development and evaluation of the Check Your Drinking screener (http://www.CheckYourDrinking.net), an IBI for problem drinkers, will be discussed. RESULTS: There have been several randomised control trials with promising results. A primary limitation of much of the research conducted to date is concerns regarding the generalisability of the findings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Caution should be taken in assuming that the IBI, which have been found to work in tightly controlled efficacy trials, will display similar levels of effectiveness when used in 'naturalistic' settings (i.e. not face-to-face in a research environment). Positive results from studies using a variety of different research designs will advance the potential for IBI, as a new means of helping problem drinkers reduce their alcohol consumption. Because of their accessibility and anonymity, IBI could facilitate a broad provision of treatment services at a population level.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".