Preliminary Clinical Outcomes of the Hello Sunday Morning Alcohol and Wellbeing Self-Assessment: Feasibility and Acceptability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol-related injuries and diseases are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early intervention is essential given the chronic, relapsing nature of alcohol use disorders. There is significant potential for widely accessible web-based screening tools to help individuals determine where they stand in terms of alcohol use and provide support recommendations. Screening and brief interventions (SBIs) provide individuals with a stigma-free opportunity to learn and think about the potential risks of drinking and prompt help-seeking behavior by incorporating behavior change techniques. Furthermore, as excessive alcohol use and mental health problems often occur concurrently, SBIs for both conditions simultaneously can potentially address a critical gap in alcohol and mental health treatment. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical outcomes of participants completing the Alcohol and Wellbeing Self-assessment (A&WS), a web-based SBI. METHODS: The A&WS is freely available on the Hello Sunday Morning website as part of an uncontrolled observational prospective study. Feasibility was assessed based on the number of respondents who commenced and subsequently completed the A&WS. Acceptability was measured via participant feedback to determine overall satisfaction, perceived helpfulness, and likelihood of recommending the A&WS to others. Clinical outcomes were measured in two ways: (1) self-reported changes in alcohol consumption (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score) or psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale score) over time and (2) help seeking-both self-reported and immediate web-based help seeking. Preliminary baseline data collected for the first 9 months (March 2022 to December 2022) of the study were reported, including the 3-month follow-up outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 17,628 participants commenced the A&WS, and of these, 14,419 (81.8%) completed it. Of those 14,419 who completed the A&WS, 1323 (9.18%) agreed to participate in the follow-up research. Acceptability was high, with 78.46% (1038/1323) reporting high satisfaction levels overall; 95.62% (1265/1323) found the A&WS easy to use and would recommend the tool to others. The 1-, 2-, and 3-month follow-ups were completed by 28.57% (378/1323), 21.09% (279/1323), and 17.61% (233/1323) of the participants, respectively. Significant reductions in the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption subscale (P<.001) and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale scores (P<.001) were observed over the 3-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the A&WS is a highly feasible and acceptable digital SBI that may support individuals in making changes to their alcohol consumption and improve their psychological well-being. In the absence of a control group, positive clinical outcomes cannot be attributed to the A&WS, which should now be subjected to a randomized controlled trial. This scalable, freely available tool has the potential to reach a large number of adults who might not otherwise access help while complementing the alcohol and mental health treatment ecosystem.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".