Cited by 321Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Exploratory randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of a waiting list control design

Open access
Cunningham, John A, Kypri, Kypros, McCambridge, Jim·2013·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Employing waiting list control designs in psychological and behavioral intervention research may artificially inflate intervention effect estimates. This exploratory randomized controlled trial tested this proposition in a study employing a brief intervention for problem drinkers, one domain of research in which waiting list control designs are used. METHODS: All participants (N = 185) were provided with brief personalized feedback intervention materials after being randomly allocated either to be told that they were in the intervention condition and that this was the intervention or to be told that they were in the waiting list control condition and that they would receive access to the intervention in four weeks with this information provided in the meantime. RESULTS: A total of 157 participants (85%) were followed-up after 4 weeks. Between-group differences were found in one of four outcomes (proportion within safe drinking guidelines). An interaction was identified between experimental manipulation and stage of change at study entry such that participant change was arrested among those more ready to change and told they were on the waiting list. CONCLUSIONS: Trials with waiting list control conditions may overestimate treatment effects, though the extent of any such bias appears likely to vary between study populations. Arguably they should only be used where this threat to valid inference has been carefully assessed.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-13-150

Cites

41 of 41 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cunningham, J. A., Kypri, K., & McCambridge, J.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Cunningham, John A
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2013-12
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
150-150
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132268984
Cited by
321
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10
FWCI
7.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (WT086516MA)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
overestimation of treatment effects, brief intervention, problem drinking, personalized feedback, stages of change, alcohol consumption, drinking guidelines
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Behavior Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Research Design, Waiting Lists, Bias, Alcohol-Related Disorders

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