Effects of a minimal‐guided on‐line intervention for alcohol misuse in Estonia: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Estonia has one of the highest alcohol-attributable mortality rates within the European Union. The aim of this study was to estimate the efficacy of an on-line self-help intervention to reduce problem drinking at the population level. DESIGN: On-line open randomized controlled trial with an 8-week intervention and an active control group (intervention n = 303, control n = 286). Assessments took place at baseline and at 6 months follow-up. SETTING: On- and offline channels were used for population-based recruitment within a nation-wide prevention campaign in Estonia. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, heavy drinking [Alcohol Use Disorders Identification (AUDIT) test score ≥ 8], literacy in Estonian and at least weekly access to the internet; n = 589 participants were randomized (50% male, 1% other; mean age 37.86 years; 45% with higher level of education). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The intervention consisted of 10 modules based on principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing. The active control group received access to a website with a self-test including personalized normative feedback and information for standard alcohol treatment. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was AUDIT scores at 6 months follow-up adjusted for baseline scores. FINDINGS: Intention-to-treat analyses were applied. Missing data were addressed by using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) and multiple imputation by chained equations (MI); 175 completed follow-up in the intervention group and 209 in the control group. AUDIT score at follow-up was significantly smaller in the intervention [BOCF mean = 13.91, standard deviation (SD) = 7.61, MI mean = 11.03, SD = 6.55] than control group (BOCF mean = 15.30, SD = 7.31; MI mean = 14.30, SD = 7.21), with a group difference of -1.38 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -2.58, -0.18], P = 0.02 for BOCF and -3.26 (95% CI = -2.01, -4.51), P < 0.001 for MI. CONCLUSIONS: A randomized controlled trial has found that an on-line self-help intervention with minimal guidance was effective at reducing problem drinking in Estonia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".