Effects of study design and allocation on self-reported alcohol consumption: randomized trial

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Kypros Kypri ; Amanda Wilson ; John Attia ; Paschal J Sheeran ; Jim McCambridge
• 关键词：Alcohol ; Allocation ; Behaviour ; Hawthorne effect ; Internet ; Placebo effect ; Randomized controlled trial ; Reactivity ; Students ; University
• 刊名：Trials
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：16
• 期：1
• 全文大小：605 KB
• 参考文献：1. McCambridge, J, Kypri, K, Elbourne, D (2014) In randomisation we trust? There are overlooked problems in experimenting with people in behavioural intervention trials. J Clin Epidemiol 67: pp. 247-53 CrossRef
  2. McCambridge, J, Kypri, K, Elbourne, D (2014) Research participation effects: a skeleton in the methodological cupboard. J Clin Epidemiol 67: pp. 845-9 CrossRef
  3. Solomon, RL (1949) An extension of control group design. Psychol Bull 46: pp. 137-50 CrossRef
  4. McCambridge, J, Kypri, K, Attia, J, Elbourne, D (2009) Re: Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 101: pp. 1029-30 CrossRef
  5. Cunningham, JA, Kypri, K, McCambridge, J (2013) Exploratory randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of a waiting list control design. BMC Med Res Methodol. 13: pp. 150 CrossRef
  6. Cook, TD, Campbell, DT (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis. Issues for field settings. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL
  7. McCambridge, J, Witton, J, Elbourne, DR (2014) Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 67: pp. 267-77 CrossRef
  8. McCambridge, J, Bruin, M, Witton, J (2012) The effects of demand characteristics on research participant behaviours in non-laboratory settings: a systematic review. PLoS One 7: pp. e39116 CrossRef
  9. Ham, L, Hope, D (2003) College students and problematic drinking: a review of the literature. Clin Psychol Rev 23: pp. 639-759 CrossRef
  10. Kypri, K, McCambridge, J, Wilson, A, Attia, J, Sheeran, P, Bowe, S (2011) Effects of study design and allocation on participant behaviour - ESDA: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 12: pp. 42 CrossRef
  11. Kypri, K, Gallagher, SJ, Cashell-Smith, ML (2004) An internet-based survey method for college student drinking research. Drug Alcohol Depend 76: pp. 45-53 CrossRef
  12. Bush, K, Kivlahan, DR, McDonell, MB, Fihn, SD, Bradley, KA (1998) The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Arch Intern Med. 158: pp. 1789-95 CrossRef
  13. Kypri, K, Paschall, MJ, Langley, JD, Baxter, J, Bourdeau, B (2010) The role of drinking locations in university student drinking: findings from a national web-based survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 111: pp. 38-43 CrossRef
  14. McCambridge, J, Kypri, K, Bendtsen, P, Porter, J (2013) The use of deception in public health behavioral intervention trials: a case study of three online alcohol trials. Am J Bioeth 13: pp. 39-47 CrossRef
  15. McCambridge, J, Kypri, K, Wilson, A (2012) How should debriefing be undertaken in web-based studies? Findings from a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 14: pp. e157 CrossRef
  16. Vickers, AJ, Altman, DG (2001) Statistics notes: analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. Br Med J 323: pp. 1123-4 CrossRef
  17. Dukala, K, Polczyk, R (2014) Age and inte
• 刊物主题：Medicine/Public Health, general; Biomedicine general; Statistics for Life Sciences, Medicine, Health Sciences;
• 出版者：BioMed Central
• ISSN：1745-6215

文摘

Background What participants think about the nature of a study might affect their behaviour and bias findings. We tested two hypotheses: (1) participants told they were in an intervention trial would report lower alcohol consumption at follow-up than those told they were in a cohort study; (2) participants told they were in the intervention group in a trial would have lower alcohol consumption at follow-up than those told they were in the control group. Methods Students from four universities (N--2,903) were invited to participate in a ‘research project on student drinking- Of 10,415 respondents, 6,788 were moderate to heavy drinkers and were randomized. Group A (‘cohort- were informed their drinking would be assessed at baseline and again in one month. Group B (‘control- were told the study was an intervention trial and they were in the control group. Group C (‘intervention- were told the study was an intervention trial and they were to receive the intervention. All were assessed and directed to read identical online alcohol education material. Whether and how long they accessed the material were recorded. One month later, alcohol intake was reassessed. Results In relation to hypothesis 1, there were no differences between the groups on the prespecified outcome measures. In relation to hypothesis 2, there were no differences though all point estimates were in the hypothesized direction (that is, ‘intervention’-?‘control-. The ‘cohort-and ‘control-groups accessed the material to a similar extent (59% versus 57%) while the ‘intervention-group were more likely to access it (78%) and to read it for longer (median 35?s (25th and 75th percentiles: 6, 97) versus medians of 7?s (0, 28) and 8?s (4, 42) for the ‘cohort-and ‘control-groups, respectively). Conclusions Although the context given to the research participants significantly influenced access to the online information and reading time, this did not translate into any effect on drinking behaviour, for either hypothesis. This might be because of failure in the experimental paradigm or the possibility of weaker effects using the online approach. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000846022