Efetividade de uma intervenção digital na diminuição da prática de binge drinking entre frequentadores de baladas

Abstract

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based intervention in reducing binge drinking among nightclub patrons after six months.METHODSWe carried out a website survey with probabilistic sample in 31 nightclubs in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, which originated a randomized controlled trial with 1,057 participants. Those classified as problem drinkers (n = 465) using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test were randomized into two study groups – intervention and control. The web-based intervention consisted of exposing the participants to a normative feedback screen about their alcohol consumption, characterizing the risks associated with amount consumed, money spent on drinks, drinking and driving, risk classification of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, and tips to reduce damage.RESULTSThere was a significant reduction in the practice of binge drinking in the week estimated at 38% among participants in the intervention group after six months (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant reduction in the outcomes when we analyzed the intervention and control groups and at baseline and after sixth months, simultaneously.CONCLUSIONSWe cannot conclude that digital tools reduce the pattern of binge drinking among party goers in São Paulo. More studies are needed with this methodology because of its attractiveness to this type of group, given the privacy and speed that personalized information is transmitted.

Effectiveness of digital psychological interventions for mental health problems in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…1887 reports were deemed to be duplicates, and a further 3471 reports (titles and abstracts) were excluded. Of the remaining 88 full-text reports assessed for eligibility, 24 studies 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review ( figure 1 ). One study 27 did not include information on mental health outcomes, therefore the data from this study were not included in the meta-analysis.…”

“…One study 27 did not include information on mental health outcomes, therefore the data from this study were not included in the meta-analysis. Two studies 35 , 45 included the same cohort of individuals, therefore, the study with the largest sample size (Sanchez and Sanudo 35 ) was included in the meta-analysis. A total of 22 studies were included in the meta-analyses, with 31 comparisons: 28 between digital psychological intervention groups and control groups, and three between digital psychological intervention groups and other specified single intervention groups (including face-to-face therapy, pharmacotherapy, and non-digital self-help interventions).…”

“…(2) Wait-list control group: participants received no treatment until 7 weeks after enrollment. Sanchez and Sanudo 35 and Baldin et al 45 Substance use (AUDIT) Brazil Community sample Nightclub patrons who reportes drinking in the past 12 months and were considered to be in a high-risk group (AUDIT score of ≥8) or a low-risk group (AUDIT score of <8) None (1) Online intervention group: 225 participants (89 [40%] female) with a mean age of 25·8 years (SD 6·8). (2) Assessment-only group: 240 participants (76 [32%] female) with a mean age of 26·5 years (SD 5·7).…”

“…In one study, 41 three patients in the Indian sample population reported abdominal discomfort, which was judged to be possibly related to the study medication, and one patient experienced an exacerbation of psychosis after having missed one dose of depot neuroleptics. The remaining 18 studies 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 did not report on adverse events.…”

“…A total of 12 studies 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 were considered to have a low risk of bias, and 12 studies 28 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 50 were considered to have a moderate risk of bias ( appendix 10 p 17 ). Specifically, 15 studies 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 reported a random component in the sequence generation process.…”