Controlled study of brief personalized assessment‐feedback for drinkers interested in self‐help
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Brief alcohol interventions typically have been directed to heavy-drinking patients seeking primary health care and college students. This study examined the efficacy of mailing brief personalized assessment-feedback to interested drinkers recruited from the general public. We hypothesized that problem drinkers would benefit more from the intervention than individuals who were not problem drinkers. DESIGN: A two-arm, double-blinded, community-based randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A screening interview was administered to a stratified random sample of 10 014 Canadians 18 years of age and older (5621 women and 4393 men; M age = 43.3 years, SD = 15.99; response rate = 65.4%). INTERVENTION: Current drinkers interested in receiving alcohol self-help materials (n = 1727) were assigned randomly to receive brief personalized assessment-feedback on male and female population drinking norms by mail, or to a delayed-treatment control group, and were contacted 6 months later (76% retention rate). MEASUREMENTS: Problem drinking status at baseline [using sex-specific Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) cut scores], and frequency and quantity of alcohol use at follow-up. FINDINGS: Analysis of covariance identified the hypothesized interaction of baseline problem drinking status and treatment condition (P < 0.01). Among problem drinkers identified at baseline the intervention caused a 10.1% reduction in per-occasion binge drinking compared to controls, whereas there was no difference in binge drinking across conditions for non-problem drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: The continuum of care for alcohol problems can be broadened by providing brief interventions to interested drinkers in the general population.
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 | 0.000 | 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".