Who uses online interventions for problem drinkers?
Open accessAbstract
The goal of this research was to understand why some people use online interventions for drinking problems, whereas others with comparable access to the interventions do not. As part of a randomized controlled trial, 92 participants in the experimental condition were provided access to a password-protected version of a Web-based personalized feedback intervention (the Check Your Drinking [CYD] screener, www.CheckYourDrinking.net). Information collected at baseline was compared between those who accessed the Web site and those who did not. Those who accessed the Web site tended to be more frequent users of the Internet, to drink less, and to perceive that others of the same age and gender drank less as compared with those who did not access the intervention. Some of these results are troubling as the preferred target of this type of intervention would be those who drink more and perceive that others are also heavy alcohol consumers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
At risk alcohol users who completed an online intervention were older, used the Internet more often, and consumed less alcohol during episodes of heavy drinking as compared to those who dropped out of the program.
“For example, Cunningham et al. (2011) showed that at risk alcohol users who completed an online intervention were older, used the Internet more often, and consumed less alcohol during episodes of heavy drinking as compared to those who dropped out of the program.”
From Online and Mobile Interventions for Problem Gambling, Alcohol, and Drugs: A Systematic Review (2017) · cites this paper as Cunningham et al., 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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 4
- Authors
- Cunningham, J. A., Wild, T. C., & Humphreys, K.
- Affiliations
- Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cunningham, John A.
- Venue
- Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 261-264
- ISSN
- 0740-5472 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3166539
- OpenAlex
- W2029618971
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 0.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01aa015056-03)
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1 R01 AA015056-01A2, R01 AA015056)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Keywords
- online intervention, problem drinking, alcohol consumption, personalized feedback, web-based screening, intervention uptake, heavy drinking, social norms, internet use
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Alcoholism, Counseling, Demography, Feedback, Female, Humans, Male, Risk-Taking, Internet
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
