MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385855788 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-073713

Effect of a smartphone intervention as a secondary prevention for use among university students with unhealthy alcohol use: randomised controlled trial

2023· article· en· W4385855788 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Bertholet, Elodie Schmutz, Joseph Studer, Angéline Adam, Gerhard Gmel, John Cunningham, Jennifer McNeely, Jean‐Bernard Daeppen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialAlcohol Use Disorders Identification TestIntervention (counseling)Alcohol consumptionAlcoholAuditPhysical therapyDemographyPoison controlInjury preventionInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To estimate the effects of providing access to an alcohol intervention based on a smartphone. Design Randomised controlled trial.. Setting Four higher education institutions in Switzerland. Participants 1770 students (≥18 years) who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use (ie, a score on the alcohol use disorders identification test-consumption (AUDIT-C) of ≥4 for men and ≥3 for women) were randomly assigned by 1:1 allocation ratio in blocks of 10. Intervention Providing access to a brief, smartphone based alcohol intervention. Outcome measures The primary outcome studied was number of standard drinks per week at six months and the secondary outcome was number of heavy drinking days (past 30 days). Additional outcomes were maximum number of drinks consumed on one occasion, alcohol related consequences, and academic performance. Follow-up assessments occurred at months three, six, and 12. Data were analysed by intention to treat and by using generalised linear mixed models with random intercepts for the recruitment site and participants nested within the recruitment site, and with intervention ( v control), time (three months v six months; 12 months v six months), and baseline outcome values as fixed effects. Results Between 26 April 26 2021 and 30 May 2022, 1770 participants (intervention group (n=884); control group (n=886)) were included. Mean age was 22.4 years (standard deviation 3.07); 958 (54.1%) were women; and 1169 (66.0%) were undergraduate students, 533 (30.1%) were studying for a master’s degree, 43 (2.4%) were studying for a doctorate, and 25 (1.4%) were students of other higher education programme. The baseline mean number of standard drinks per week was 8.59 (standard deviation 8.18); the baseline number of heavy drinking days was 3.53 (4.02). Of 1770 participants, follow-up rates were 1706 (96.4%) at three months, 1697 (95.9%) at six months, and 1660 (93.8%) at 12 months. Of 884 students randomly assigned to the intervention group, 738 (83.5%) downloaded the smartphone application. The intervention had a significant overall effect on the number of standard drinks per week (incidence rate ratio 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.96)), heavy drinking days (0.89 (0.83 to 0.96)), and the maximum number of drinks consumed on one occasion (0.96 (0.93 to 1.00), P=0.029), indicating significantly lower drinking outcomes in the intervention group than in the control group during the follow-up period. The intervention did not affect alcohol related consequences or academic performance. Conclusions Providing access to the smartphone application throughout the 12 month follow-up was effective at limiting the average drinking volume of university students who had self-reported unhealthy alcohol use at baseline. Trial registration ISRCTN 10007691.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→