Randomized controlled trial of online interventions for co-occurring depression and hazardous alcohol consumption: Primary outcome results
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The current trial tested the benefits of offering a brief online intervention for hazardous alcohol consumption along with one for depression among people experiencing both conditions. METHODS: Online advertisements were used to recruit people with persistent low mood. Those who also had current hazardous alcohol consumption were identified and invited to take part in the trial (those not eligible were offered access to the online depression intervention). Participants were randomized to an established intervention for depression (MoodGYM; M-only) or to receive MoodGYM plus a brief personalized feedback intervention for hazardous drinking (Check Your Drinking; M + CYD). Participants were followed-up at three and six months. RESULTS: > .05) in the number of MoodGYM modules completed between the two groups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The current trial found no benefit to providing a brief online intervention for hazardous alcohol consumption alongside one for depression among people experiencing these co-occurring disorders. Further, the finding that adding an online intervention for drinking to one for depression led to a small reduction in the number of times the interventions were accessed implies the need for caution when deciding how best to provide online help to those with co-occurring depression and hazardous alcohol consumption.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT03421080.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it