Alcohol Use DisorderNCT03438539
Brief Online Interventions for Alcohol Use
A study testing Normative Feedback and Working Memory Training in people with Alcohol Use Disorder, run by Craig Rush at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive training over mTurk. Subjects will be randomized to a 1) inhibitory control training condition, 2) working memory training condition, or 3) control training condition. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Alcohol Use Disorder
- What is being tested?
- Normative Feedback and Working Memory Training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 444 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 22 Feb 2018to 27 Jul 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 21 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Self-reported past week alcohol use.
- Meet criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), verified by computerized questionnaire for DSM-V AUD criteria (Appendix A).
- Age 21 years or older.
- Express interest in completing a 2-week study involving daily cognitive tasks.
- Residence in the United States
Who cannot join
- N/A
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Brief Online Interventions for Alcohol Use: A Crowdsourced Study
The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive training over mTurk. Subjects will be randomized to a 1) inhibitory control training condition, 2) working memory training condition, or 3) control training condition. Recent studies have also demonstrated the feasibility and potential efficacy of delivering brief normative feedback to reduce alcohol consumption through mTurk. In these brief interventions, subjects are provided information about their drinking compared to their same age and gendered peers. Approximately half of the subjects in each cognitive training group will receive normative feedback to evaluate effects on alcohol consumption and possible interactions with cognitive training. This study will focus on alcohol use given the ease and clinical acceptance of alcohol use self-report as a primary outcome.
Read the detailed description
Alcohol use disorder is a persistent public health concern. Approximately 16 million Americans met criteria for alcohol use disorder in 2015, with the annual economic impact of excessive drinking estimated at $250 billion. Alcohol use can also interact with other licit (e.g., cigarettes) and illicit (e.g., cocaine) substances to increase health risks . At least half of all violent crimes involve alcohol consumption and problem drinking plays an important role in domestic abuse and intimate partner violence . These evident economic, health, and social implications of alcohol misuse highlight the importance of understanding determinants of alcohol use behaviors and developing interventions designed to address maladaptive patterns of use.
Cognitive training to address alcohol and other substance use disorders has received a great deal of attention in the interventions development literature. Training may be broadly divided into two classes: 1) cognitive bias modification and response inhibition (i.e., inhibitory control) and 2) working memory interventions. Inhibitory control training attempts to retrain prepotent responses away from drug-related cues by specifically pairing those cues with no-go signals in training tasks. Working memory training uses cognitive-behavioral tasks (e.g., letter/digit strings, visual search, n-back) to improve information maintenance and manipulation. These brief interventions hold particular appeal because they may be easily incorporated into comprehensive approaches to substance use treatment. For example, cognitive improvements due to brief training may improve engagement with and attention to cognitive-behavioral therapy and compliance with homework and other program-related activities. Generally speaking, training has consistently demonstrated improvements on the trained or similar tasks as well as related concepts (e.g., delay discounting is improved after working memory training). Improvements in dissimilar tasks or different domains are not consistently observed, however, and clinical measures, such as drug use, have seen mixed outcomes.
A significant limitation of the extant literature is the relatively small samples typically evaluated (i.e., 20-40 subjects per condition). It is likely that the effects of cognitive training are of a small-to-medium effect size, however, the relatively low costs of training procedures mean that small effect sizes may not preclude clinical utility. It is also likely that individual characteristics will moderate the utility of these interventions for impacting substance use or related negative health behaviors. The use of small samples precludes testing these types of moderators with adequate statistical power as does the recruitment of comparably homogeneous samples (e.g., student samples, individuals from a single addiction clinic).
An emerging method addressing these concerns is crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing, such as on Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk (mTurk), allows for the effective and efficient sampling of diverse subjects. We have previously demonstrated a close correspondence between in-person and online findings using mTurk in substance use research providing support for the validity of the resource. We have also recently demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and validity of conducting intensive longitudinal research related to substance use on this platform. Demonstrating the feasibility and acceptability of applying cognitive training methods through mTurk would help establish this setting for future large sample studies testing novel interventions and/or individual characteristic moderating intervention efficacy.
The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive training over mTurk. Subjects will be randomized to a 1) inhibitory control training condition, 2) working memory training condition, or 3) control training condition. Recent studies have also demonstrated the feasibility and potential efficacy of delivering brief normative feedback to reduce alcohol consumption through mTurk. In these brief interventions, subjects are provided information about their drinking compared to their same age and gendered peers. Approximately half of the subjects in each cognitive training group will receive normative feedback to evaluate effects on alcohol consumption and possible interactions with cognitive training. This study will focus on alcohol use given the ease and clinical acceptance of alcohol use self-report as a primary outcome.
- Conditions
- Alcohol Use Disorder
- Being tested
- Normative Feedback, Inhibitory Control Training, Working Memory Training
- Medical subject headings
- Alcoholism
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Normative FeedbackBehavioural
Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender.
Inhibitory Control TrainingBehavioural
The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control.
Working Memory TrainingBehavioural
A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Attentional Control with Normative Feedback | Sham comparator | Control training tasks will include completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Receives: Behavioral: Normative Feedback |
| Inhibitory Control Training with Normative Feedback | Experimental | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Receives: Behavioral: Normative Feedback; Behavioral: Inhibitory Control Training |
| Working Memory Training with Normative Feedback | Experimental | A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Receives: Behavioral: Normative Feedback; Behavioral: Working Memory Training |
| Attentional Control without Normative Feedback | No intervention | Control training tasks will include completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
| Inhibitory Control Training without Normative Feedback | Experimental | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Receives: Behavioral: Inhibitory Control Training |
| Working Memory Training without Normative Feedback | Experimental | A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Receives: Behavioral: Working Memory Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Alcohol Use
Self-report of percent of heavy alcohol drinking days
Measured: Past two weeks
Secondary outcomes (2)
Percentage of Sessions Completed (Feasibility)
Completion rates during intervention period
Measured: 2 weeks
Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire
Total average ratings on a treatment acceptability questionnaire, rated from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater treatment acceptability.
Measured: 2 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Feb 2018
- Study start22 Feb 2018
- Primary completion27 Jul 2018
- Study completion27 Jul 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Alcohol Use DisorderStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- An Internet survey hosted by Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics: Online Survey Software will be used in this protocol. Cognitive tasks will be coded using PsyToolKit, an open-source tool for programming and running cognitive-psychological experiments and surveys online (Stoet, 2017). A mixed-model design will be used such that subjects are randomly assigned to one of three cognitive training conditions and two information feedback conditions (i.e., between-subjects variables). The same subjects will be sampled at each time point in the study (i.e., repeated/longitudinal variables).
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 444 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Craig Rush
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Craig Rush, University of Kentucky
- Investigators
- Craig R Rush, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Kentucky
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03438539
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- mTurk 10
- Other IDs
- R34DA038869
- Status last verified
- Jan 2020
- First submitted
- 12 Feb 2018
- Last updated
- 29 Jan 2020
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Strickland JC, Hill JC, Stoops WW, Rush CR. Feasibility, Acceptability, and Initial Efficacy of Delivering Alcohol Use Cognitive Interventions via Crowdsourcing. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019 May;43(5):888-899. doi: 10.1111/acer.13987. Epub 2019 Mar 19.
PubMed 30888705
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Jan 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Brief Online Interventions for Alcohol Use: A Crowdsourced Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03438539
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- mTurk 10
- Conditions
- Alcohol Use Disorder
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 444 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Craig RushUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Study start
- 22 Feb 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 27 Jul 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 27 Jul 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Feb 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 29 Jan 2020
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive training over mTurk. Subjects will be randomized to a 1) inhibitory control training condition, 2) working memory training condition, or 3) control training condition. Recent studies have also demonstrated the feasibility and potential efficacy of delivering brief normative feedback to reduce alcohol consumption through mTurk. In these brief interventions, subjects are provided information about their drinking compared to their same age and gendered peers. Approximately half of the subjects in each cognitive training group will receive normative feedback to evaluate effects on alcohol consumption and possible interactions with cognitive training. This study will focus on alcohol use given the ease and clinical acceptance of alcohol use self-report as a primary outcome.
Detailed description
Alcohol use disorder is a persistent public health concern. Approximately 16 million Americans met criteria for alcohol use disorder in 2015, with the annual economic impact of excessive drinking estimated at $250 billion. Alcohol use can also interact with other licit (e.g., cigarettes) and illicit (e.g., cocaine) substances to increase health risks . At least half of all violent crimes involve alcohol consumption and problem drinking plays an important role in domestic abuse and intimate partner violence . These evident economic, health, and social implications of alcohol misuse highlight the importance of understanding determinants of alcohol use behaviors and developing interventions designed to address maladaptive patterns of use.
Cognitive training to address alcohol and other substance use disorders has received a great deal of attention in the interventions development literature. Training may be broadly divided into two classes: 1) cognitive bias modification and response inhibition (i.e., inhibitory control) and 2) working memory interventions. Inhibitory control training attempts to retrain prepotent responses away from drug-related cues by specifically pairing those cues with no-go signals in training tasks. Working memory training uses cognitive-behavioral tasks (e.g., letter/digit strings, visual search, n-back) to improve information maintenance and manipulation. These brief interventions hold particular appeal because they may be easily incorporated into comprehensive approaches to substance use treatment. For example, cognitive improvements due to brief training may improve engagement with and attention to cognitive-behavioral therapy and compliance with homework and other program-related activities. Generally speaking, training has consistently demonstrated improvements on the trained or similar tasks as well as related concepts (e.g., delay discounting is improved after working memory training). Improvements in dissimilar tasks or different domains are not consistently observed, however, and clinical measures, such as drug use, have seen mixed outcomes.
A significant limitation of the extant literature is the relatively small samples typically evaluated (i.e., 20-40 subjects per condition). It is likely that the effects of cognitive training are of a small-to-medium effect size, however, the relatively low costs of training procedures mean that small effect sizes may not preclude clinical utility. It is also likely that individual characteristics will moderate the utility of these interventions for impacting substance use or related negative health behaviors. The use of small samples precludes testing these types of moderators with adequate statistical power as does the recruitment of comparably homogeneous samples (e.g., student samples, individuals from a single addiction clinic).
An emerging method addressing these concerns is crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing, such as on Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk (mTurk), allows for the effective and efficient sampling of diverse subjects. We have previously demonstrated a close correspondence between in-person and online findings using mTurk in substance use research providing support for the validity of the resource. We have also recently demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and validity of conducting intensive longitudinal research related to substance use on this platform. Demonstrating the feasibility and acceptability of applying cognitive training methods through mTurk would help establish this setting for future large sample studies testing novel interventions and/or individual characteristic moderating intervention efficacy.
The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive training over mTurk. Subjects will be randomized to a 1) inhibitory control training condition, 2) working memory training condition, or 3) control training condition. Recent studies have also demonstrated the feasibility and potential efficacy of delivering brief normative feedback to reduce alcohol consumption through mTurk. In these brief interventions, subjects are provided information about their drinking compared to their same age and gendered peers. Approximately half of the subjects in each cognitive training group will receive normative feedback to evaluate effects on alcohol consumption and possible interactions with cognitive training. This study will focus on alcohol use given the ease and clinical acceptance of alcohol use self-report as a primary outcome.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 6
- Model description
- An Internet survey hosted by Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics: Online Survey Software will be used in this protocol. Cognitive tasks will be coded using PsyToolKit, an open-source tool for programming and running cognitive-psychological experiments and surveys online (Stoet, 2017). A mixed-model design will be used such that subjects are randomly assigned to one of three cognitive training conditions and two information feedback conditions (i.e., between-subjects variables). The same subjects will be sampled at each time point in the study (i.e., repeated/longitudinal variables).
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Attentional Control with Normative Feedback | Sham comparator | Behavioral: Normative FeedbackControl training tasks will include completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
| Inhibitory Control Training with Normative Feedback | Experimental | Behavioral: Normative Feedback, Behavioral: Inhibitory Control TrainingThe inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
| Working Memory Training with Normative Feedback | Experimental | Behavioral: Normative Feedback, Behavioral: Working Memory TrainingA battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
| Attentional Control without Normative Feedback | No intervention | –Control training tasks will include completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
| Inhibitory Control Training without Normative Feedback | Experimental | Behavioral: Inhibitory Control TrainingThe inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
| Working Memory Training without Normative Feedback | Experimental | Behavioral: Working Memory TrainingA battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Self-reported past week alcohol use.
- Meet criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), verified by computerized questionnaire for DSM-V AUD criteria (Appendix A).
- Age 21 years or older.
- Express interest in completing a 2-week study involving daily cognitive tasks.
- Residence in the United States
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- N/A
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Normative FeedbackSubjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. | Behavioural | Attentional Control with Normative Feedback, Inhibitory Control Training with Normative Feedback, Working Memory Training with Normative Feedback |
| Inhibitory Control TrainingThe inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. | Behavioural | Inhibitory Control Training with Normative Feedback, Inhibitory Control Training without Normative Feedback |
| Working Memory TrainingA battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. | Behavioural | Working Memory Training with Normative Feedback, Working Memory Training without Normative Feedback |
Primary outcome
Alcohol Use
Time frame: Past two weeks
Self-report of percent of heavy alcohol drinking days
2 secondary outcomes
Percentage of Sessions Completed (Feasibility)
Time frame: 2 weeks
Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire
Time frame: 2 weeks
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Jan 2020.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 30888705Strickland JC, Hill JC, Stoops WW, Rush CR. Feasibility, Acceptability, and Initial Efficacy of Delivering Alcohol Use Cognitive Interventions via Crowdsourcing. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019 May;43(5):888-899. doi: 10.1111/acer.13987. Epub 2019 Mar 19.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Alcohol Use Disorder
RecruitingObservational study
NIAAA Natural History Protocol
Alcohol Use Disorder
RecruitingPhase 1
Environment and Alcohol: A Pilot Study
Alcohol Use Disorder
RecruitingPhase 2
Psilocybin-assisted Therapy for Comorbid Major Depressive Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD)
Not yet recruitingEarly Phase 1
Pain Sensitivity, Alcohol-Induced Analgesia, and Heavy Drinking in Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder
Opioid Use Disorder, Alcohol Intoxication
RecruitingPhase 1
Spironolactone in Alcohol Use Disorder (SAUD)
Alcohol Use Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Craig R Rush, PhD principal investigator
University of Kentucky
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Normative Feedback and Working Memory Training in people with Alcohol Use Disorder, run by Craig Rush at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Jan 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 29 Jan 2020). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Alcohol Use (time frame: Past two weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03438539, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 Jan 2020; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.