No registrations found.
ID
Source
Brief title
Health condition
harmful drinking
Sponsors and support
Intervention
Outcome measures
Primary outcome
Primary outcome variables alcohol-related:
1. #abstinence days
2. drinking at follow-ups (2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after posttest)
3. number of binges (5+ standard NL units of 10 grams of alcohol on a day for females, 6+ for males)
Secondary outcome
1. Expectancies (VAV, Wiers et al, 1997), shortened, reduced positive and increased negative expectancies;
2. Automatically activated expectancies (Cummins & De Houwer, in press, mouse-based task)*
3. Self-efficacy (situational confidence questionnaire)
* only in pilot in Feb-March 2021, not in larger study January 2022
Background summary
In this study, we test a novel form of cognitive training: ABC-training (Wiers et al., 2020), during a six-week voluntary abstinence period. Participants will be recruited from IkPas(NoThanks!), which is a Dutch health campaign by the Positive Lifestyle foundation that helps adult alcohol users put their alcohol consumption on hold. ABC-training is based on the idea that inferential processes rather than associative processes underlie training effects in cognitive bias modification (CBM). ABC training incorporates personalized risk situations, or antecedents (A), and requires participants to make behavioral choices (B), in accordance with their personal goals, in light of their consequences (C). Therefore, training the repeated choice to either approach or avoid substances with certain (personally relevant) consequences attached, will create inferences about the evaluative properties of these choices. The A’s and B’s will be simulated in a virtual environment, where the participants will navigate an avatar to become aware of the goal related consequences (C’s) of their choices. In this RCT, volunteer participants are randomized over three conditions: ABC-training, regular CBM training and sham-training. We expect stronger effects of ABC-training than of regular CBM, for which we expect stronger effects than sham-CBM: ABC>CBM>sham-CBM. Main outcome variables are duration of successful abstinence (days), and drinking at three follow-ups: 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after posttest. Secondary outcome variables are expectancies, self-efficacy, and alcohol-related problems (AUDIT past half year, assessed only at pre-test and 6 months follow-up).
Study objective
We expect better outcomes: ABC > CBM > sham-CBM
Study design
Pretest, 6 week voluntary training period during IkPas (max 12 training sessions, suggested to do at least 6), posttest, follow-ups two weeks, three and six months after posttest.
Intervention
ABC-training (Wiers, Van Dessel & Köpetz, 2020, Current Directions in Psychological Science)
CBM in the same setup (cf. Wiers et al, 2010; 2011; Van Dessel et al, 2018).
Sham CBM in the same setup (idem).
Inclusion criteria
adult volunteer particiants of IkPas, voluntary abstinence challenge
Exclusion criteria
minor
Design
Recruitment
IPD sharing statement
Followed up by the following (possibly more current) registration
No registrations found.
Other (possibly less up-to-date) registrations in this register
No registrations found.
In other registers
| Register | ID |
|---|---|
| NTR-new | NL9274 |
| Other | UvA, ethical committee psychology : 2021-DP-13138 (approved) |