{"title":"候补名单控制设计对在线求助者饮酒量的影响:随机对照试验","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Indirect evidence suggests that using waiting list control designs in behavioural research may have unintended consequences. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of a waiting list design on alcohol consumption among individuals who had looked online for help.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A two-arm randomised controlled trial was employed. The intervention group was informed that they belonged to the intervention group and would receive immediate access to a digital alcohol intervention. The waiting list control group was informed that they belonged to the group that had to wait four weeks to be given access to the intervention and in the meantime, they would be given a summary of their drinking. However, both groups received immediate access to the same digital alcohol intervention; the experimental contrast was thus between being told to wait or not.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We randomised 3388 participants (intervention: 1692, waiting list: 1696). Data were available for 954 participants at 1-month follow-up. We found no strong evidence that alcohol consumption differed between groups, but the evidence pointed towards the intervention group reporting lowering weekly alcohol consumption compared to the waiting list control group (IRR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83; 1.08, probability of effect = 78.8 %).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We found no strong evidence that being informed that access to an intervention would be delayed produced differential self-reported alcohol consumption compared to being informed that access would be immediate. We did find a difference in engagement with the intervention materials, indicating that the experimental manipulation was successful.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11322,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871624013346/pdfft?md5=8c6f73a4776b97aca84d6dad75ab6c78&pid=1-s2.0-S0376871624013346-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of a waiting list control design on alcohol consumption among online help-seekers: A randomised controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112409\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Indirect evidence suggests that using waiting list control designs in behavioural research may have unintended consequences. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of a waiting list design on alcohol consumption among individuals who had looked online for help.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A two-arm randomised controlled trial was employed. The intervention group was informed that they belonged to the intervention group and would receive immediate access to a digital alcohol intervention. The waiting list control group was informed that they belonged to the group that had to wait four weeks to be given access to the intervention and in the meantime, they would be given a summary of their drinking. However, both groups received immediate access to the same digital alcohol intervention; the experimental contrast was thus between being told to wait or not.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We randomised 3388 participants (intervention: 1692, waiting list: 1696). Data were available for 954 participants at 1-month follow-up. We found no strong evidence that alcohol consumption differed between groups, but the evidence pointed towards the intervention group reporting lowering weekly alcohol consumption compared to the waiting list control group (IRR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83; 1.08, probability of effect = 78.8 %).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We found no strong evidence that being informed that access to an intervention would be delayed produced differential self-reported alcohol consumption compared to being informed that access would be immediate. We did find a difference in engagement with the intervention materials, indicating that the experimental manipulation was successful.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug and alcohol dependence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871624013346/pdfft?md5=8c6f73a4776b97aca84d6dad75ab6c78&pid=1-s2.0-S0376871624013346-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug and alcohol dependence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871624013346\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871624013346","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effects of a waiting list control design on alcohol consumption among online help-seekers: A randomised controlled trial
Background
Indirect evidence suggests that using waiting list control designs in behavioural research may have unintended consequences. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of a waiting list design on alcohol consumption among individuals who had looked online for help.
Methods
A two-arm randomised controlled trial was employed. The intervention group was informed that they belonged to the intervention group and would receive immediate access to a digital alcohol intervention. The waiting list control group was informed that they belonged to the group that had to wait four weeks to be given access to the intervention and in the meantime, they would be given a summary of their drinking. However, both groups received immediate access to the same digital alcohol intervention; the experimental contrast was thus between being told to wait or not.
Results
We randomised 3388 participants (intervention: 1692, waiting list: 1696). Data were available for 954 participants at 1-month follow-up. We found no strong evidence that alcohol consumption differed between groups, but the evidence pointed towards the intervention group reporting lowering weekly alcohol consumption compared to the waiting list control group (IRR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83; 1.08, probability of effect = 78.8 %).
Conclusion
We found no strong evidence that being informed that access to an intervention would be delayed produced differential self-reported alcohol consumption compared to being informed that access would be immediate. We did find a difference in engagement with the intervention materials, indicating that the experimental manipulation was successful.
期刊介绍:
Drug and Alcohol Dependence is an international journal devoted to publishing original research, scholarly reviews, commentaries, and policy analyses in the area of drug, alcohol and tobacco use and dependence. Articles range from studies of the chemistry of substances of abuse, their actions at molecular and cellular sites, in vitro and in vivo investigations of their biochemical, pharmacological and behavioural actions, laboratory-based and clinical research in humans, substance abuse treatment and prevention research, and studies employing methods from epidemiology, sociology, and economics.