Cited by 23Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsBehavioral Health and Interventions

Brief intervention for women with risky drinking and medical diagnoses: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Chang, Grace, Fisher, Naomi D.L., Hornstein, Mark D., Jones, Jennifer A., Hauke, Sarah H., Niamkey, Nina, Briegleb, Christina, Orav, Endel John·2011·Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

Abstract

This is a randomized controlled trial of 511 eligible women treated for diabetes, hypertension, infertility, or osteoporosis on an outpatient basis to test the hypothesis that those randomized to a brief intervention (BI) will drink less than those in the control condition 12 months later. A secondary goal was to identify the characteristics associated with changes in drinking outcome. All 511 completed the initial alcohol assessment, and 96% completed the 12-month follow-up interview. Those receiving the BI also had 3- and 6-month interviews. Four outcomes were assessed: (a) mean drinks per drinking day, (b) percent drinking days, (c) binge episodes defined as four or more drinks per occasion, and (d) weeks of drinking exceeding the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism sensible drinking limits. Overall, there were no differences in drinking outcome by treatment group. Characteristics associated with changes in drinking, however, were identified to provide possible direction for future investigation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsat.2011.02.011

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Chang 2011, blinding of participants and personnel was judged high risk because participants and study staff could not be blinded to treatment group assignment.

    “Blinding of participants and personnel All outcomes High risk Quote:”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Chang 2011

  • In Chang 2011, blinding of outcome assessors for objective outcomes was judged low risk because live birth and miscarriage are observer-reported outcomes not involving judgement.

    “Blinding of outcome as sessors Objective outcomes Low risk Comment: outcome assessors were not blinded.Live birth and miscarriage were not likely to be influenced, as they are observer-reported outcomes not involving judgement”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Chang 2011

  • In Chang 2011, blinding of outcome assessors for patient-reported outcomes was judged high risk because the outcome assessor is the participant and is not blinded, and reported behavioural changes regarding drinking are likely to be influenced.

    “Blinding of outcome as sessors Patient reported outcome measures High risk Comment: outcome assessor is participant and is not blinded; reported behavioural changes regarding drinking are likely to be influenced, as less drinking is known to be socially desirable”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Chang 2011

  • In Chang 2011, other sources of bias were judged low risk because the study appeared free of other sources of bias.

    “Other sources of bias Low risk Comment: study appears free of other sources of bias”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Chang 2011

  • In Chang 2011, incomplete outcome data was judged high risk because 161 out of 511 randomised participants were reported to have infertility, but outcome data were available only for 37 participants.

    “Incomplete outcome data High risk Comment: in Chang 2011 (table 2), 161 out of 511 participants randomised are reported to have infertility.However outcome data are available only for 37 participants.Study authors were contacted twice for clarification, but no reply was received as of February 2021”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Chang 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 2002 Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV TR Axis I Disorders – Non-Patient Edition (SCID-I/NP 11/2002 Revision) Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute New York
  2. Nuro KF Maccarelli L Baker SM Martino S Rounsaville BJ Carroll KM Yale Adherence and Competence Scale (YACS II) Guidelines, Second Edition West Haven, CT Yale University Psychotherapy Development Center Training 7 2005
  3. Sobell LC Sobell MB 1992 Timeline Followback: A technique for assessing self-reported ethanol consumption Allen J Litten RZ Measuring alcohol consumption: psychosocial and biological methods Totowa, NJ Humana Press 41 72

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chang, G., Fisher, N. D. L., Hornstein, M. D., Jones, J. A., Hauke, S. H., Niamkey, N., Briegleb, C., & Orav, E. J.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Chang, Grace
Venue
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
105-114
ISSN
0740-5472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979484476
Cited by
23
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA014678, K24AA000289)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
brief intervention, hazardous drinking, women, alcohol consumption, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, infertility, osteoporosis, binge drinking, outpatient care
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Ethanol, Boston, Central Nervous System Depressants, Data Collection, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Infertility, Interview, Psychological, Middle Aged, Osteoporosis, Psychotherapy, Brief, Risk-Taking, Time Factors, Comorbidity, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review