ITT vs Per-protocol API Comparisons
The per-protocol analysis includes any student who participated in stage 1 (viewing at least one PNF page and doing at least one self-monitoring survey). All heavy drinkers who participated in Stage 1, also engaged in stage 2 (just visited the site, partial or full completion). There are 344 students in the per-protocol analysis.
Ratio of ratios for all outcomes
|
|
Ratio of follow-up 1 to baseline (SE)
|
Ratio of follow-up 2 to baseline (SE)
|
|
|
Early/Coach
|
Early/Email
|
Late/Coach
|
Late/Email
|
P-value
|
Early/Coach
|
Early/Email
|
Late/Coach
|
Late/Email
|
P-value
|
|
Binge drinking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ITT
|
2.05 (0.28)
|
1.65 (0.25)
|
1.57 (0.23)
|
1.59 (0.24)
|
0.422
|
3.19 (0.47)
|
2.58 (0.36)
|
2.01 (0.30)
|
2.21 (0.30)
|
0.148
|
|
Per-protocol
|
2.20 (0.53)
|
1.95 (0.47)
|
1.57 (0.42)
|
1.47 (0.40)
|
0.694
|
3.39 (0.84)
|
3.11 (0.71)
|
2.18 (0.55)
|
2.58 (0.60)
|
0.657
|
|
Alcohol consequences
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ITT
|
1.61 (0.15)
|
1.64 (0.16)
|
1.68 (0.16)
|
1.63 (0.17)
|
0.987
|
0.83 (0.12)
|
0.95 (0.14)
|
0.99 (0.15)
|
0.79 (0.14)
|
0.530
|
|
Per-protocol
|
1.74 (0.26)
|
1.60 (0.21)
|
1.75 (0.27)
|
1.73 (0.32)
|
0.944
|
0.82 (0.17)
|
0.90 (0.18)
|
1.02 (0.29)
|
0.95 (0.24)
|
0.942
|
ITT vs.ย Per-protocol: Main effect of Stage 1 (Timing)
For this analysis, students will be included as long as they participated in Stage 1.
|
|
Ratio of follow-up 1 to baseline
|
Ratio of follow-up 2 to baseline
|
|
|
Early (SE)
|
Late (SE)
|
Ratio of ratios (95% CI)
|
P-value
|
Early (SE)
|
Late (SE)
|
Ratio of ratios (95% CI)
|
P-value
|
|
Binge drinking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ITT
|
1.84 (0.21)
|
1.58 (0.19)
|
1.17 (0.84, 1.61)
|
0.347
|
2.87 (0.35)
|
2.10 (0.24)
|
1.36 (0.99, 1.88)
|
0.059
|
|
Per-protocol
|
2.14 (0.39)
|
1.54 (0.24)
|
1.39 (0.86, 2.24)
|
0.181
|
3.32 (0.60)
|
2.11 (0.32)
|
1.57 (0.99, 2.50)
|
0.054
|
|
Alcohol consequences
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ITT
|
1.62 (0.13)
|
1.65 (0.13)
|
0.98 (0.79, 1.23)
|
0.876
|
0.89 (0.10)
|
0.89 (0.12)
|
1.00 (0.70, 1.43)
|
1.000
|
|
Per-protocol
|
1.78 (0.19)
|
1.62 (0.18)
|
1.10 (0.81, 1.49)
|
0.535
|
0.88 (0.13)
|
0.81 (0.14)
|
1.09 (0.69, 1.71)
|
0.719
|
ITT vs Per-protocol: Main effect of Stage 2 (Bridging)
|
|
Ratio of follow-up 1 to baseline
|
Ratio of follow-up 2 to baseline
|
|
|
Coach (SE)
|
Email (SE)
|
Ratio of ratios (95% CI)
|
P-value
|
Coach (SE)
|
Email (SE)
|
Ratio of ratios (95% CI)
|
P-value
|
|
Binge drinking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ITT
|
1.79 (0.18)
|
1.62 (0.17)
|
1.11 (0.87, 1.40)
|
0.409
|
2.53 (0.27)
|
2.38 (0.23)
|
1.06 (0.84, 1.33)
|
0.610
|
|
Per-protocol
|
1.86 (0.33)
|
1.69 (0.31)
|
1.10 (0.72, 1.68)
|
0.668
|
2.72 (0.48)
|
2.83 (0.46)
|
0.96 (0.65, 1.41)
|
0.832
|
|
Alcohol consequences
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ITT
|
1.65 (0.11)
|
1.63 (0.11)
|
1.01 (0.87, 1.18)
|
0.884
|
0.91 (0.09)
|
0.87 (0.10)
|
1.04 (0.82, 1.33)
|
0.721
|
|
Per-protocol
|
1.74 (0.19)
|
1.66 (0.19)
|
1.05 (0.81, 1.36)
|
0.723
|
0.91 (0.16)
|
0.92 (0.15)
|
0.99 (0.67, 1.45)
|
0.950
|