Module 8 Assessment of Research, Evaluation and Intervention Development

Articles:

Article I - Quality of life and pain perception in alcohol dependence:

Article II - Predictive factors of alcohol abuse and addiction in Mexican adolescents

Article III- Relative frequency of heavy drinking and the risk of alcohol dependence

Article IV- The Effectiveness of the 'What Do You Drink' Web-based Brief Alcohol Intervention in Reducing Heavy Drinking among Students

Study and Design

Article I, II, III, IV Significant details are provided for the procedure. The procedure was also written clearly; it also had a logical flow of all steps clearly stated. Analysis I: The research data was assessed using the SPSS 15.0 software package. The Chi-square test was executed for qualitative data, and the standard distribution fitness test was performed for quantitative data. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) achieved for variables with normal distribution, and the Mann– Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for those with non-normal distribution. The relationship among variables was examined using Spearman's correlation test. The statistical significance level is accepted as p < .05. After being informed about the study, the participants gave written informed consent. Article II: a cross-sectional survey based on correlation with an ex post facto design was utilized. Scale of definite expectations of alcohol consumption. Set of 7 items with Likert-type questions assessing potentials such as: drinking alcohol makes me feel calm, be happier when I am with other people, and have more fun at parties, among others, Indicators related to the Theory of Planned Behavior by Ajzen. Set of four Likert-type questions evaluating three indicators: Article III: The relative frequency measure is thus a proportion, ranging in value from 0 to 1. In the logistic modeling process, a cube-root transform was applied to lineralize this variable's relationship

Article IV: A Two-arm Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Trial

Heavy drinking was analyzed as a dichotomous measure with 0 = 'no heavy drinking' and 1 - 'heavy drinking.' Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) is applied to measure problem drinking.

Controls

Articles I, II, III, IV Controls ensure internal validity, controls were adequate,

Article I: Exclusion criteria for the relative group were defined as: using alcohol or drug, having psychosis or organic mental disorder, being illiterate, and having sensory problems in a neurologic examination. The exclusion criteria for the control group were defined as current use of alcohol or drugs, having psychosis or organic mental disorder, being illiterate, sensory problems in a neurologic examination, and having a first-degree relative with alcohol use disorder.

Article II: Personal norm. Self-perception of the person. This was assessed by the question evaluating how much he or she agrees with the idea that drinking alcohol can have a damaging effect on one's life and perceived behavioral control. This calculates how easy or difficult it is to lose track of how much one has drunk and the ability to control the amount of alcohol consumed, explored through two items, set of five questions exploring alcohol consumption in the past 12 months, the past 30 days, intake of three or more glasses per occasion, and age at drinking onset. Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Article III: The scale entails ten items with scores ranging from 0 to 40. Subscales of the AUDIT comprise sensible drinking (0-7), hazardous drinking (8-15), harmful drinking (16-19), and dependent drinking (20-40). An AUDIT score >8 is indicative of problem drinking. However, an AUDIT score of >16 was assumed as a valid cut-off score in our heavy drinking student population.

Article IV: Heavy drinking was defined as consuming >21 glasses of standard alcohol units per week and/or five or more glasses standard alcohol units at a single occasion (binge drinking) at least 1 day per week for males and females consuming more than 14 glasses of standard alcohol units per week and/or five or more glasses of standard alcohol units at a single occasion (binge drinking) at least 1 day per week.

Analysis

Articles I, II, III, IV Data is well organized, Statistical method used for analysis is appropriate for research questions. Article I: The research data were evaluated using the SPSS 15.0 software package. The Chi-square test was performed for qualitative data, and the normal distribution fitness test was performed for quantitative data; one-way analysis variance (ANOVA) was performed for variables with normal distribution, and the Mann– Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis test was used for those with non-normal distribution. The relationship among variables was examined using Spearman's correlation test. Statistical significance level accepted as p < .05.

Article II A descriptive analysis was used to describe the study variables. Comparative tests were undertaken to detect the possible differences between sex and consumption patterns in each of the variables studied through Student's t, Chi-square, and/or ANOVA of one or two factors according to the case. Moreover, the psychometric quality of the scales used with Cronbach's alpha (reliability) and factor analysis (validity) was evaluated. The analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS v18.0 software. Article III: The analysis consisted of three pans. First, the relative rate of recurrence of heavy drinking was projected for the complete sample of present drinkers and within groups of average everyday ethanol intake. Second, the prevalent past-year alcohol dependence was projected within categories of the relative frequency of heavy drinking and average daily ethanol intake. Finally, the adjusted effects of the consumption measures were estimated by means of a logistic regression model that controlled for the contradictory effects of various sociodemographic factors. The modeling process also tested for interactions between average daily intake and relative frequency of heavy drinking and for interactions between each of these consumption measures and the various sociodemographic factors. Article IV: Weekly alcohol consumption was analyzed as a continuous measure. Therefore, the harmful and dependent drinking subscales were merged and recoded into dichotomous variables with 0='no problem drinking' (AUDIT scores of 0-15) and 1 = 'problem drinking' (AUDIT scores of 16-40).

Results Articles I, II, III, IV Tables and Graphs clearly are labeled. Tables and Graphs complement the test. Article: I The sociodemographic information of the sample group is shown in Table 1. There was no statistically significant difference between the study groups in terms of age (p > .05). A total of 27 women and 123 men were included in the study; the number of men and women was equal in all three groups (p > .05) in order not to affect the results.

Article II: A significantly larger proportion of women mentioned that they had drunk at least one glass of alcohol in the 12 months prior to the survey and the past 30 days (Table 1). Of those who reported that they had drunk alcohol during the past year and month, nearly 90% had drunk three or more glasses per occasion, with no significant differences being found by sex (Table 2). The diagnostic characteristics obtained through the AUDIT showed a reasonably similar proportion between male and female nondrinkers/occasional drinkers and abusers. However, there is a slightly higher proportion of dependent men (Table 3). Positive expectations of alcohol consumption, by sex and consumption pattern.

Article III: Graphs (Table 1). Another 21% drank 5 + drinks less than 10% of the time, that is, on less than 10% of their total drinking occasions. Only 9% drank 5 + drinks half of the time or more often, and most of these (7%) drank 5 + drinks on 75% or more of their drinking occasions. As Table 1 indicates, the relative frequency of heavy drinking varied according to average daily ethanol intake. For example, the proportion of drinkers who drank 5 + drinks 75% of the time or more often rose from 1% of those consuming a daily average of less than 0.10 ounces of ethanol to 42% of those drinking 3.00 ounces or more. Article IV: Analyses according to the intention-to-treat principle revealed no significant main intervention results in reducing the alcohol methods at the follow-up assessments. Secondary analyses revealed that gender, first-year students, and fraternity or sorority participants did not average the effect of the WDYD intervention at both follow-ups. Willingness to change, problem drinking, and carnival participation moderated intervention effects such that contemplators, those with serious symptoms of alcohol abuse or dependence, and those who participated in carnival benefited more than others from the WDYD intervention concerning weekly alcohol-consuming at 1-month follow-up

Discussion

Articles: I, II, III,IV Discussion clearly flow with data, discussion place the study findings in context with what is known already, If a Theoretical or conceptual nature of the findings discussed. Article: No relationship between pain and addiction level (e.g., duration of addiction, the number of treatments) was found in our study. The analgesic effect of alcohol and pain sensitivity in alcohol withdrawal is well known. Finally, we found high pain tolerance in patients with alcohol dependence in objective measurement, which makes an important contribution to the literature in this field. Nevertheless, it is still not possible to explain why pain tolerance in alcohol dependence is high

Article II: In addition to gender-related risks, those associated with age should also be taken into account; adolescence constitutes a biological and psychological period that is more susceptible to the development of dependency and other problems related to alcohol use, making this population group doubly vulnerable.

Article III: This study found a negative interaction between the relative frequency measure and male gender. The similar magnitudes and opposing signs of the coefficients for this interaction (6 = - 0.445) and the individual effect of male gender (b = 0.600) indicate that as the relative frequency of heavy drinking approaches one, the odds of dependence for men and women converge. Article IV: The WDYD intervention did not effectively reduce the alcohol measures among heavy drinking students at 1- and 6-month post-intervention. However, there is initial evidence that the WDYD intervention is active in lowering drinking levels for subgroups of excessive drinking students in the short term. What Do You Drink (WDYD?

References

Deborah A. Davison & Loran D. Archer & CLARK, W. B. (Eds) Alcohol America: Drinking Practices and Problems, (Albany, NY, State University New York Press).

Ekmekci Ertek, I., Taner, M. E., Nazik Yüksel, R., Ozan Kotan, V., & Göka, E. (2019). Quality of life and pain perception alcohol dependence: A comparative examination of patients, their relatives, healthy controls. Journal of Substance Use, 24(5), 514–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/14659891.2019.1612473

Rodríguez Kuri, S. E., Córdova, Alcaráz, J. C., & Fernández Cáceres, M. D. C. (2015). Estudio comparativo del proceso de inserción social en hombres y mujeres usuarios de drogas en rehabilitación. Health and Addictions/Salud Y Drogas, 15(1), 49–54. doi:10.21134/haaj.v15i1.222

Voogt, C. ., Poelen, E. A. ., Kleinjan, M., Lemmers, A. C. ., & Engels, R. C. M. . (2013). The effectiveness of the “What Do You Drink” web-based brief alcohol intervention in reducing heavy drinking students: two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial. Alcohol and Alcoholism (Oxford), 48(3), 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/ags133