Trial Outcomes & Findings for Pilot Study of a Computer-Based Intervention for Alcohol Misuse in the Emergency Department (NCT NCT01146665)
NCT ID: NCT01146665
Last Updated: 2018-11-29
Results Overview
AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption subscale): 1 item regarding frequency of alcohol consumption, 1 item regarding the amount of alcohol consumption, and 1 item regarding the frequency of binge drinking. Scores range from 0 to 12 with higher scores reflecting more consumption. The change in alcohol use report below reflects the change in AUDIT-C scores with negative values indicating a reduction in score and positive values indicating an increase in score.
Recruitment status
COMPLETED
Study phase
NA
Target enrollment
44 participants
Primary outcome timeframe
baseline, 1 and 3 months post-intervention
Results posted on
2018-11-29
Participant Flow
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Medical Care Plus Computer-based PAF
Computer-based Personalized Assessment Feedback: This brief intervention targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Medical Care Plus Computer-based Sham
Computer-based sham: Similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
18
|
26
|
|
Overall Study
1-month Post-ED Discharge (Follow-up)
|
9
|
12
|
|
Overall Study
3-month Post-ED Discharge (Follow-up)
|
8
|
10
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
8
|
10
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
10
|
16
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Medical Care Plus Computer-based PAF
Computer-based Personalized Assessment Feedback: This brief intervention targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Medical Care Plus Computer-based Sham
Computer-based sham: Similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
10
|
16
|
Baseline Characteristics
Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant.
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=18 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (computer-based personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
n=26 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
Total
n=44 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Customized
13 years
|
1 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
14 years
|
3 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
9 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
12 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
15 years
|
7 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
9 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
16 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
16 years
|
6 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
12 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
17 years
|
1 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
12 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
19 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
31 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
6 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
13 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
|
—
|
—
|
0 Participants
Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant.
|
|
Region of Enrollment
Canada
|
18 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
26 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
44 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Met AUDIT-C cut-score of 3 for harmful and hazardous drinking
|
15 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
24 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
39 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Report of using other substances prior to ED visit
Marijuana
|
3 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
9 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Report of using other substances prior to ED visit
Marijuana and ecstasy
|
1 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Report of using other substances prior to ED visit
Over the counter medication
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
|
Report of using other substances prior to ED visit
None
|
14 Participants
n=18 Participants
|
19 Participants
n=26 Participants
|
33 Participants
n=44 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: baseline, 1 and 3 months post-interventionAUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption subscale): 1 item regarding frequency of alcohol consumption, 1 item regarding the amount of alcohol consumption, and 1 item regarding the frequency of binge drinking. Scores range from 0 to 12 with higher scores reflecting more consumption. The change in alcohol use report below reflects the change in AUDIT-C scores with negative values indicating a reduction in score and positive values indicating an increase in score.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=18 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
n=26 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Change in Youth Alcohol Use
mean difference from 1 month to baseline
|
-0.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.34
|
-0.88 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.70
|
—
|
|
Change in Youth Alcohol Use
mean difference from 3 months to baseline
|
-0.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.21
|
-0.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.82
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 18 monthsPopulation: The recruitment rate was calculated as the number of enrolled participants (n=44) divided by the number of eligible participants (n=117).
To be calculated following active recruitment (18 months from study start date of patient enrolment). The recruitment rate relates to recruitment into the study, and not recruitment per arm as randomization and allocation occurred after enrolment.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=117 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Recruitment Rate
Number recruited
|
44 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
Recruitment Rate
Number not recruited
|
73 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 1 and 3 months post-interventionPopulation: We were interested in the overall study retention rates at 1- and 3-months post-intervention, and not retention rates per arm, as the purpose of calculating the rates was to assess the feasibility of a follow-up period in a definitive randomized controlled trial.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=44 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention Rates
1 month retention
|
21 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
Retention Rates
3 month retention
|
18 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: post-intervention (day 1)Population: Total number of participants analyzed was 44. Each allocation guess by staff/physicians/nurses was analyzed using the number of adolescents allocated to each arm: 18 to intervention; 26 to control.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=44 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
n=44 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
n=44 Participants
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Knowledge of Treatment Allocation
Adolescent was allocated to control · Guess: I do not know
|
1 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Knowledge of Treatment Allocation
Adolescent was allocated to intervention · Guess: allocated to intervention
|
9 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Knowledge of Treatment Allocation
Adolescent was allocated to intervention · Guess: allocated to control
|
7 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Knowledge of Treatment Allocation
Adolescent was allocated to intervention · Guess: I do not know
|
2 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
|
Knowledge of Treatment Allocation
Adolescent was allocated to control · Guess: allocated to intervention
|
16 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Knowledge of Treatment Allocation
Adolescent was allocated to control · Guess: allocated to control
|
9 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: youth: post-intervention (day 1)The acceptability of the Personalized Assessment Feedback (PAF) intervention will be assessed by youth post-intervention (only youth allocated to the PAF intervention). Measure assessed acceptability (satisfaction with the intervention, perceptions of the helpfulness, credibility of the personalized assessment feedback) and feasibility (time to completion, user friendliness).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=18 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The program helped me think about what I do · Unknown/No response
|
4 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I liked the way the computer program looked · Strongly agreed
|
1 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I liked the way the computer program looked · Agreed
|
11 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I liked the way the computer program looked · Unsure
|
1 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I liked the way the computer program looked · Disagreed
|
1 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I liked the way the computer program looked · Strongly disagreed
|
0 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I liked the way the computer program looked · Unknown/No response
|
4 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
This computer program was easy to use · Strongly agreed
|
2 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
This computer program was easy to use · Agreed
|
9 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
This computer program was easy to use · Unsure
|
1 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
This computer program was easy to use · Disagreed
|
2 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
This computer program was easy to use · Strongly disagreed
|
0 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
This computer program was easy to use · Unknown/No response
|
4 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I was able to finish the computer program quickly · Strongly agreed
|
3 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I was able to finish the computer program quickly · Agreed
|
8 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I was able to finish the computer program quickly · Unsure
|
0 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I was able to finish the computer program quickly · Disagreed
|
3 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I was able to finish the computer program quickly · Strongly disagreed
|
0 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
I was able to finish the computer program quickly · Unknown/No response
|
4 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The program helped me think about what I do · Strongly agreed
|
1 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The program helped me think about what I do · Agreed
|
9 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The program helped me think about what I do · Unsure
|
0 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The program helped me think about what I do · Disagreed
|
3 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The program helped me think about what I do · Strongly disagreed
|
1 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The feedback the program gave me was believable · Strongly agreed
|
2 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The feedback the program gave me was believable · Agreed
|
6 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The feedback the program gave me was believable · Unsure
|
3 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The feedback the program gave me was believable · Disagreed
|
3 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The feedback the program gave me was believable · Strongly disagreed
|
0 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
|
PAF Feasibility and Acceptability
The feedback the program gave me was believable · Unknown/No response
|
4 Participants
|
—
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: BaselinePopulation: Due to the large amount of missing data (at 1-month \[52.3%\] and 3-months \[59.0%\] post-intervention) we did not assess change in utilization from baseline to 1- and 3-months post-intervention (pre-specified secondary outcome) as the results would be prone to bias.
The Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA) is a self-report instrument designed to assess the use of community- and hospital-based health and social services. We focused each question so that we collected service use for an alcohol use problem.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=44 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
n=18 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
n=26 Participants
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Missing
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Used (ever)
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Used in last 3 months
|
2 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Missing
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Used (ever)
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Used in last 3 months
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Never used
|
39 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Missing
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Used (ever)
|
6 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Used in last 3 months
|
5 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Never used
|
30 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Missing
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Used (ever)
|
4 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Used in last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Never used
|
37 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Used in last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Never used
|
38 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Missing
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Used (ever)
|
7 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Never used
|
33 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Missing
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Used (ever)
|
5 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Used in last 3 months
|
4 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Never used
|
33 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Missing
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Used (ever)
|
5 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Used in last 3 months
|
8 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Never used
|
29 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Missing
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Used in last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Never used
|
40 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Used in last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Never used
|
40 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Missing
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Used in last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Never used
|
40 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Missing
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: BaselineAs part of CASA measure (secondary outcome measure to measure health and social services utilization) adolescents were asked two additional questions on receptivity to receiving services. The data below reflects the first question: On a scale of 1-5, where 1 is it's definitely a bad idea and 5 it's definitely a good idea, do you think that if someone you knew had an alcohol use problem they should get help or seek treatment?
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=44 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
n=18 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
n=26 Participants
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Receptivity to Receiving Services: Seeking Help/Treatment
Missing response
|
4 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Receiving Services: Seeking Help/Treatment
Definitely bad idea
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Receiving Services: Seeking Help/Treatment
Bad idea
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Receiving Services: Seeking Help/Treatment
Neutral
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Receiving Services: Seeking Help/Treatment
Good idea
|
10 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Receiving Services: Seeking Help/Treatment
Definitely good idea
|
25 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: BaselineAs part of CASA measure (secondary outcome measure to measure health and social services utilization) adolescents answered 8 additional questions on perceived barriers to services: 1) Do you have any feelings such as dislike, distrust or fear about talking with doctors, counselors or other professionals? 2) Do you have any feelings about what other people would think if you sought help? 3) Do you find there is a lack of information that affected health services sought? 4) Do you have any concerns about the amount of time it takes to get help? 5) Were the health services you sought just not readily available? 6) Did you feel you just didn't want to talk to anyone about such a sensitive problem? 7) Was there a problem with registration, setting up appointments or contacting professionals? 8) Was there a problem getting to where treatment was available?
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=44 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
n=18 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
n=26 Participants
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Didn't want to talk about sensitive problem · No
|
16 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Negative feelings about talking · No
|
16 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Negative feelings about talking · Yes, but didn't affect services sought
|
7 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Negative feelings about talking · Yes and delayed seeking services
|
4 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Negative feelings about talking · Yes and stopped from seeking services
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Negative feelings about talking · Missing
|
17 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Feelings about what others would think · No
|
18 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Feelings about what others would think · Yes, but didn't affect services sought
|
5 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Feelings about what others would think · Yes and delayed seeking services
|
3 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Feelings about what others would think · Yes and stopped from seeking services
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Feelings about what others would think · Missing
|
17 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Lack of information that affected services sought · No
|
24 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Lack of information that affected services sought · Yes, but didn't affect services sought
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Lack of information that affected services sought · Yes and delayed seeking services
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Lack of information that affected services sought · Yes and stopped from seeking services
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Lack of information that affected services sought · Missing
|
18 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Concerns about time it takes to get help · No
|
23 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Concerns about time it takes to get help · Yes, but didn't affect services sought
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Concerns about time it takes to get help · Yes and delayed seeking services
|
2 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Concerns about time it takes to get help · Yes and stopped from seeking services
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Concerns about time it takes to get help · Missing
|
17 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Health services were not readily available · No
|
22 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Health services were not readily available · Yes, but didn't affect services sought
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Health services were not readily available · Yes and delayed seeking services
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Health services were not readily available · Yes and stopped from seeking services
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Health services were not readily available · Missing
|
17 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Didn't want to talk about sensitive problem · Yes, but didn't affect services sought
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Didn't want to talk about sensitive problem · Yes and delayed seeking services
|
4 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Didn't want to talk about sensitive problem · Yes and stopped from seeking services
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Didn't want to talk about sensitive problem · Missing
|
18 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with setting up appointments or contact · No
|
22 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with setting up appointments or contact · Yes, but didn't affect services sought
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with setting up appointments or contact · Yes and delayed seeking services
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with setting up appointments or contact · Yes and stopped from seeking services
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with setting up appointments or contact · Missing
|
19 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with getting to where treatment available · No
|
23 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with getting to where treatment available · Yes, but didn't affect services sought
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with getting to where treatment available · Yes and delayed seeking services
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with getting to where treatment available · Yes and stopped from seeking services
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Perceived Barriers to Services
Problem with getting to where treatment available · Missing
|
19 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: BaselineAs part of CASA measure (secondary outcome measure to measure health and social services utilization) adolescents were asked two additional questions on receptivity to receiving services. The data below reflects the second question: On a scale of 1-5, where 1 is it's definitely cannot help and 5 it definitely can help, do you think that doctors or counselors can help with alcohol use problems in general?
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=44 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
n=18 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
n=26 Participants
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Receptivity to Services: Doctors/Counselors Can Help
Definitely can help
|
14 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Services: Doctors/Counselors Can Help
Missing response
|
4 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Services: Doctors/Counselors Can Help
Definitely cannot help
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Services: Doctors/Counselors Can Help
Cannot help
|
4 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Services: Doctors/Counselors Can Help
Neutral
|
8 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Receptivity to Services: Doctors/Counselors Can Help
Can help
|
11 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 1-month post-interventionPopulation: Due to the large amount of missing data (at 1-month \[52.3%\] and 3-months \[59.0%\] post-intervention) we did not assess change in utilization from baseline to 1- and 3-months post-intervention (pre-specified secondary outcome) as the results would be prone to bias.
The Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA) is a self-report instrument designed to assess the use of community- and hospital-based health and social services. We focused each question so that we collected service use for an alcohol use problem.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=44 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
n=18 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
n=26 Participants
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Used in the last 3 months
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Never used
|
17 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Never used
|
21 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Missing
|
23 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Used in the last 3 months
|
5 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Used in the last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Never used
|
19 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Missing
|
23 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Missing
|
23 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Used (ever)
|
5 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Used in the last 3 months
|
7 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Never used
|
9 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Missing
|
23 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Used in the last 3 months
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Never used
|
20 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Missing
|
24 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Used in the last 3 months
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Never used
|
17 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Missing
|
23 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Used in the last 3 months
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Used in the last 3 months
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Never used
|
19 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Missing
|
23 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Never used
|
15 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Missing
|
23 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Used in the last 3 months
|
3 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Never used
|
17 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Missing
|
23 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Used in the last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Never used
|
19 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Missing
|
23 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 3-months post-interventionPopulation: Due to the large amount of missing data (at 1-month \[52.3%\] and 3-months \[59.0%\] post-intervention) we did not assess change in utilization from baseline to 1- and 3-months post-intervention (pre-specified secondary outcome) as the results would be prone to bias.
The Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA) is a self-report instrument designed to assess the use of community- and hospital-based health and social services. We focused each question so that we collected service use for an alcohol use problem.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
n=44 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a brief intervention (personalized assessment feedback) that targeted norm misperceptions, for example summarizing a youth's drinking in comparison to same average male or female in the general population. Theoretically, such normative feedback corrects norm misperceptions and motivates drinkers to re-evaluate their consumption patterns.
|
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
n=18 Participants
Standard medical care followed by a computer-based sham intervention. The sham was similar in format and duration as the Personalized Assessment Feedback but engaged youth in nutrition and exercise-related questions.
|
ED Nurses
n=26 Participants
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Used (ever)
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Missing
|
27 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Missing
|
31 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Never used
|
17 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Used in last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Never used
|
15 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hospital · Missing
|
27 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Used in last 3 months
|
4 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Never used
|
11 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Psychiatrist/Psychologist/SW · Missing
|
27 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Used in last 3 months
|
2 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Never used
|
15 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Clinic · Missing
|
27 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Used in last 3 months
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Crisis service · Never used
|
15 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Used in last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
General physician (GP) · Never used
|
11 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Used (ever)
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Used in last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Never used
|
16 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
School-based service · Missing
|
26 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Used in last 3 months
|
4 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Never used
|
14 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Family/Friends · Missing
|
26 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Used in last 3 months
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Never used
|
18 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Hotline · Missing
|
26 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Used in last 3 months
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Never used
|
16 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Self-help · Missing
|
27 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Used (ever)
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Used in last 3 months
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change in Health Care System Utilization by Youth
Internet · Missing
|
27 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
Adverse Events
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based PAF
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Standard Medical Care Followed by Computer-based Sham
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place