MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094713780 · doi:10.2196/19749

Qualitative Evaluation of Web-Based Digital Intervention to Prevent and Reduce Excessive Alcohol Use and Harm Among Young People Aged 14-15 Years: A “Think-Aloud” Study

2020· article· en· W3094713780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Tinner, Eileen Kaner, Claire Garnett, Siobhán Mitchell, Matthew Hickman, Rona Campbell, Georgina J MacArthur

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool for Public Health ResearchEconomic and Social Research CouncilCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health ImprovementMedical Research CouncilDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKLlywodraeth CymruUnited Kingdom Clinical Research CollaborationBritish Heart FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionThink aloud protocolHarmPsychologyQualitative researchNormativeFocus groupYoung adultUsabilityClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, despite some downward trends in alcohol use among young people, over one-fifth of young people reported excessive alcohol use in the past month, which is associated with short- and long-term harm to health. Digital interventions to reduce alcohol use, such as websites, among young people present an appealing and cost-effective mode of intervention that can be integrated into the education system. However, relatively few school-based digital alcohol-focused interventions have been developed and evaluated for young people in the United Kingdom. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a novel web-based intervention, Rethink Alcohol, to prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use and related harm among young people aged between 14 and 15 years, and explore the views of young people, teachers, and youth workers in relation to the content, design, and usability of the intervention. METHODS: Intervention development followed the person-based approach, using theories of social norms and social influence. Qualitative "Think-Aloud" interviews, either one-to-one or paired, were conducted while participants perused and worked through the web-based intervention, talking aloud. Participants included 20 young people (12 female, 8 male), 5 youth workers (4 female, 1 male), 3 teachers (2 male, 1 female), and 1 (male) clinical professional, recruited via youth groups and professional networks. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: The prototype web-based intervention included normative feedback, information, a quiz, interactive activities, and scenarios. On a rating scale of impressions from poor (1) to excellent (5), participants gave an average score of 3.6/5. A total of 5 themes were identified: content, credibility of the website, making the website easy to understand, design and navigation, and suitability for the audience. These themes reflected views that the content was interesting, credible, informative, and embodied a neutral and nonjudgmental tone, but stronger messaging was needed regarding social pressures and short-term risks regarding safety and risk behavior alongside clarity around pathways of risk; credibility and trustworthiness of information were critical features, determined in part, by the professionalism of design and referencing of sources of information provided; and messages should be succinct and come to life through design and interactive features. CONCLUSIONS: Together, the data illustrated the importance and challenge of communicating nuanced alcohol-focused public health messages to young people in concise, clear, nonjudgmental, and appealing ways. Young people report interest in clear, credible, neutral, and interactive messages regarding social pressures and short-term risks of alcohol use via a web-based intervention. There is scope for optimization and feasibility testing of the Rethink Alcohol intervention.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207