Effects of low-intensity Internet alcohol treatment on alcohol consumption in comparison with no-intervention controls, and subgroup analyses of associations between effect sizes and study characteristics (Hedges’s <i>g</i>).

<p><i>Notes:</i><b>bold</b> – near significance;^a-1 according to the random effects model;^a-2: according to the mixed effects model ^bThe P-values in this column indicatewhether the Q-statistic is significant (I2-statistics do not include a test of significance).; ^cThe P-values in this column indicate whether the difference between the effect sizes in the subgroups is significant.; *P≤0.05; **P<0.01; ***P≤0.001; AUDIT: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; CBT cognitive-behavioural therapy; CI = confidence interval; CO completers-only analysis; DSM = Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; FAST: Fast Alcohol Screening Test; ITT intention-to-treat analysis; MI motivational interviewing; n comp = number of comparisons; NNT = number needed to treat; PNF personalised normative feedback.</p

Results of meta-analysis: forest plot.

<p>Results of meta-analysis: forest plot.</p

Study inclusion meta-analysis: flow chart.

<p>Study inclusion meta-analysis: flow chart.</p

Proposal for a four-step evaluation and approval process of prevention interventions for health-compromising behaviours.

<p>Proposal for a four-step evaluation and approval process of prevention interventions for health-compromising behaviours.</p

Criteria used in most widespread registries of evidence-based prevention interventions.

<p>This table is partly based on the work by Gandhi et al. <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001740#pmed.1001740-Gandhi1" target="_blank">[22]</a>, with the addition of the EMCDDA Best Practice Portal <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001740#pmed.1001740-Bo1" target="_blank">[23]</a> and the Dutch Recognition System <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001740#pmed.1001740-Brug1" target="_blank">[24]</a>.</p>a<p>The application describes how the intervention is integrated into schools' educational mission.</p><p>Abbreviations: EMCDDA, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Abuse; NIDA, National Institute on Drug Abuse; SAMHSA, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; ED, US Department of Education; N/A, not available.</p><p>Criteria used in most widespread registries of evidence-based prevention interventions.</p

Scatter plots of relations of implicit (IAT) and explicit weight bias with BMI at the individual level.

<p>Note. Each point in the plots represents the average preference of participants as a function of their BMI. The weight bias scores ranges from +2 to -2 for the IAT and from +3 to -3 for the explicit, with 0 indicating no relative preference between thin people over overweight people. More positive scores indicate a preference for thin people over overweight people, while more negative scores indicate a preference for overweight people over thin people. Vertical bars signify standard error. Data for participants with BMI greater than 60 were not included in the plot (0.15%). The regression line was computed on the original and not on the average data.</p

Scatter plots of relations of implicit (IAT) and explicit weight bias as a function of three weight indicators (BMI, percentage of overweight and underweight people) at the national level.

<p>Note. The weight bias scores ranges from +2 to -2 for the IAT and from +3 to -3 for the explicit, with 0 indicating no relative preference between thin people over overweight people. More positive scores indicate a preference for thin people over overweight people, while more negative scores indicate a preference for overweight people over thin people.</p