Name of intervention | Related studies | Theories | Mentioned | Applied | Measured constructs | How Theory Applied | Measures of Theoretical Constructs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
21 Web Basics [United States] | Neighbors C, 2012 | Theory of Planned Behavior | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized normative feedback regarding participants’ intended quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption use at 21st birthday. Provides education on alcohol (e.g., the relationship between alcohol consumption and blood alcohol concentration). Asks partcipants to consider alternatives to drinking. | • Drinking intention • Intention to use protective behaviors (e.g., limiting the number of drinks, avoiding drinking games) |
Neighbors C, 2009 | |||||||
Alcohol 101 [United States] | Barnett NP, 2004 | Social Cognitive Theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized normative feedback about participants’ drinking patterns and perceptions of peer drinking. Includes elements of motivational interviewing (including information intended to enhance risk perception). Informational content, and harm reduction suggestions. | • Attitudes towards alcohol • Motivation to change drinking, assessed with “Readiness Ladder” • Normative and self-ideal discrepancy |
Barnett NP, 2007 | |||||||
Carey KB, 2009 | Theory of Reasoned Action Transtheoretical model | ||||||
Carey KB, 2010 | |||||||
Carey KB, 2011 | |||||||
Donahue B, 2004 | |||||||
Lao-Barraco C, 2008 | |||||||
Mastroleo NR, 2011 | |||||||
Murphy JG, 2010 | |||||||
Reis J, 2000 | |||||||
Sharmer L, 2001 | |||||||
AlcoholEdu [United States] | Croom K, 2009 | Expectancy theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Presents “ideas of self-efficacy as related to safe and responsible drinking.” Challenges postive expectancies related to the effects of alcohol use on behavior, mood and cognition. Media literacy and knowledge of adverse effects of drinking is linked to social norms theory. A segment of normative feedback built on motivational interviewing techiniques. | • Expectancies of alcohol use: positive and negative • Perceived drinking norms |
Hustad JTP, 2010 | |||||||
Lovecchio CP, 2010 | Social Cognitive Theory | ||||||
Paschall MJ, 2011 | |||||||
Paschall MJ,, 2011 | Social norms theory | ||||||
Paschall MJ, 2014 | |||||||
Wyatt TM, 2013 | |||||||
Nygaard P, 2012 | |||||||
Wall AF, 2006 | |||||||
Wall AF, 20071 | |||||||
Climate Schools: Alcohol Module/Alcohol and The CLIMATE Schools Combined [Australia] | Newton NC, 2009 | Social Influence Approach, derived from social learning theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Discussion of alcohol and drug refusal skills alcohol use norms among 14–15-year-olds, decision-making about whether to consume alcohol and the purpose of getting drunk discussed, differing views on the consumption of alcohol. | • Alcohol knowledge • Alcohol expectancies |
Newton NC, 2009 | |||||||
Newton NC, 2010 | |||||||
Newton NC, 2011 | |||||||
Newton NC, 2012 | |||||||
Teeson MN, 2014 | |||||||
Vogl L, 2009 | |||||||
College Alc [United States] | Bersamin M, 2007 | Problem Behavior Theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback on how users’ drinking and attitudes towards drinking compare to their peers’. Posting of written assignments and journal entries on a public bulletin board encouraged. Passages about social norms designed to help students clarify their attitudes toward alcohol use and gain a better understanding of peer attitudes. Users encouraged to consider the expectancies they hold regarding alcohol use and how those expectancies influence their behavior. | • Alcohol expectancies (positive and negative) • Alcohol-related knowledge • Alcohol-related attitudes • Intentions to minimize alcohol-related harm • Normative alcohol beliefs |
Paschal MJ, 2006 | |||||||
Theory of Planned Behavior | |||||||
Check Your Drinking [Canada] | Cunningham JA, 2012 | Social Norms Theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized normative feed back (comparing the participants’ drinking to others of a similar age, sex, and country of origin in the general population or [in the university edition] college student population. Assessment of the severity of the participants’ drinking concerns. | • Perceptions of peer drinking |
Doumas DM, 2008 | |||||||
Doumas DM, 2009 | |||||||
eCHECKUP TO GO (eCHUG) [United States] | Alfonso J, 2013 | Expectancy theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized normative feedback assesses the user’s alcohol use and expectations of alcohol use and provides feedback comparing user’s use to typical college students’ use the extent of the negative consequences the student attributes to her or his alcohol use. Motivational interviewing/ motivational enhancement principles mentioned, application unclear. | • Readiness to change • Motivation to change • Positive alcohol expectancies • Positive beliefs about alcohol use |
Doumas DM, 2009 | |||||||
Doumas DM, 2014 | Social norms theory | ||||||
Murphy JG, 2010 | |||||||
Walters ST, 2007 | |||||||
Walters ST, 2009 | |||||||
Wodarski JS, 2012 | |||||||
Lifeskills Training CD-ROM [United States] | Williams C, 2005 | Social Learning Theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | The basis of this CBI, the LifeSkills Training program, [60] was developed based on Social Learning Theory. The intervention teaches social, self-management and drug resistance skills. Sessions on building self-esteem; goal setting; decision making; myths and misconceptions about tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana; literacy; anxiety management; communication and social skills; and assertiveness training. | • Life-skills knowledge (e.g., communication skills, assertiveness, refusal skills) • Peer and adult normative expectations regarding smoking, drinking, and drug use • Pro-drug attitudes |
Problem Behavior Theory | |||||||
Self-derogation Theory | |||||||
Peer cluster theories | |||||||
Michigan Prevention and Alcohol Safety for Students (M-PASS) [United States] | Barretto AI, 2011 | Health Belief Model | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Information that relates alcohol consequences to users’ personal values provided. Personalized feedback provided based on a self-efficacy survey and users’ perceptions of alcohol norms. Section on alcohol use myths and facts corrects confusions and reinforces accurate information. Students make choices based on scenarios where they may be tempted or presurred to drink. Users select benefits of and barriers to drinking less or not drinking at all and are presented with a benefits/barriers scorecard. Users set alcohol- or value-related goals and strategies to reach goals, and learn to monitor progress. | • Tolerance of drinking and drive/drinking • Reasons to drink • Use of strategies to avoid high-risk drinking • Motivations for drinking and not drinking alcohol. Stages of change: • For high-risk drinkers, the 12-item Readiness to Change Questionnaire • For low-risk drinkers, a single-item about anticipated alcohol use in 6 months |
Bingham C, 2010 | |||||||
Bingham C, 2011 | Theory of Planned Behavior | ||||||
Transtheoretical Model | |||||||
Precaution Adoption Process Model | |||||||
PAS (Prevention of alcohol use in students) [Netherlands] | Koning IM, 2009 | Theory of planned behavior | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Targets the students’ abilities to develop a healthy attitude towards alcohol use, and build refusal skills. | • Adolescents’ self-control • Attitudes towards drinking and parental rules |
Koning IM, 2010 | |||||||
Social cognitive theory | |||||||
Project Fitness [United States] | Moore MJ, 2012 | Behavior-Image Model (which is supported by Prospect Theory) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Messages on the benefits of health behaviors illustrate how health-promoting behaviors promote salient other and self-images, and messages imparting used to show how health risk behaviors interfere with image outcomes and achievement of health promoting habits. | • Alcohol intentions • Alcohol prototype image [perceived similarity to those who drink] • Willingness to be seen as someone who drinks a lot • Behavior coupling [whether alcohol is perceived to interfere with other health behaviors] • Alcohol social norms |
Reach Out Central [Australia] | Burns J, 2007 | Social cognitive theory | ✓ | ✓ | Players navigate a virtual, realistic environment designed to be engaging and appealing to the audience, meet other characters and engage in a variety of social situations. Scenarios allow players to make choices and see the consequence of their choices. To help youth recognize and learn strategies to improve their mood, the player’s in-game mood is affected by activities and how he or she responds to other characters and situations. | [No specific outcomes pertaining to theories] | |
Burns J, 2010 | |||||||
Shandley K, 2010 | Elaboration likelihood model | ||||||
RealTeen [United States and Canada] | Schwinn TM, 2010[b] | Social Learning Theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Lessons on nine topics: goal setting, decision making, coping, self-esteem, assertion, communication, media influences, peer pressure, and drug facts. Players respond to a question related to each topic, and can post their response to a personal diary, a public blog, or a peer “pen-pal.” | • Self-efficacy to make decisions, set goals, refuse drugs, and manage social situations and stress • Perception of the acceptability of using alcohol • Perceptions of alcohol use norms among peers |
What Do You Drink [Netherlands] | Voogt CV, 2011 | I-change Model (integration of several approaches including Fishbein-Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action, Transtheoretical Model, and Social Learning Theory) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | A personalized normative feedback segment, includes screening and feedback tailored to alcohol intake, sex and perceived social norms, including advice about drinking according to national health guidelines, estimates of the the number of standard drinks and calories consumed, and the cost of those drinks in weight gained and money spent. Another segment asks participants to make decisions about how much alcohol they want to drink, provides them with tips for how to resist alcohol in different situations, shows vignettes related to alcohol use, and asks them to determine factors in the scenes that make it hard to resist drinking. Goal setting and action planning elements related to motivational interviewing. | • Positive or negative attitudes towards alcohol use • Self-efficacy • Subjective norms • Alcohol expectancies |
Voogt CV, 2012 | |||||||
Voogt CV, 2013 | |||||||
Voogt CV, 2014 | |||||||
Voogt CV, 2014 | |||||||
Social Influence/Social Cognitive Theory | |||||||
Your Decisions Count– Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs [United States] | Evers KE, 2012 | Transtheoretical model | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Feedback given on progress through the stages of change. Advice is given on what behavioral strategies players could employ to continue progressing. Short movies of students giving testimonials about drug use. | • Pros and cons of being drug-free (decisional balance) • Processes of change • Processes of resistance • Self-efficacy • Stage of change (for each substance being targeted) |
No name [Asian-American Mother Daughter Intervention] [United States] | Fang L, 2010 | Family interaction theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Extensive exercises to cultivate trust and communication between mother and daughter: a conflict management role play; animations showing how engaging in or avoiding substance use respectively hurts or benefits adolescent girls; body image and mood management exercises; sress management exercises with animated characters illustrating signs of stress; problem solving using the Stop, Options, Decide, Act, and Self-praise metthod; and exercises correcting misperceptions of peer use of substance with graphs and other visuals; and an interactive game emphasizing the importance of praise and assertiveness. | • Level of mother daughter closeness • Maternal monitoring • Mother-daughter communication |
Fang L, 2012 | |||||||
Fang L, 2013 | |||||||
Fang L, 2014 | |||||||
No name [Black and hispanic mother-daughter intervention] [United States] | Schinke S, 2011 | Family interaction theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Activities to improve mother-daughter communication, increase parental monitoring and rule enforcement, build daughters’ self-image and self-esteem, create family rituals, and avoid unrealistic expectations on the part of mothers. Exercises to increase the value of time together and to increase family rituals and routines. Lessons designed to enhance self-efficacy were incorporated into the program (with no explanation of how self-efficacy was enhanced). | • Mother-daughter communication • Perceptions of family rules against substance use • Perceptions of parental monitoring of extracurricular activities, whereabouts, and friends • Normative beliefs about peer substance use • Self-efficacy to avoid alcohol, tobacco, and drug use • Daughters’ intentions to smoke, drink, and use drugs as adults |
Social Learning Theory | |||||||
Attachment Theory | |||||||
Deviant behavior proneness theory | |||||||
No name [College freshman intervention] [United States] | Lewis MA, 2007a | Social Comparison Theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized normative feedback providing information regarding personal drinking, perceptions of typical student drinking, and actual typical student drinking norms. Two versions were created: one offering gender-specific feedback and the other offering gender-neutral feedback. | • Revised version of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale, a measure of gender identity For peers in general and same-gender peers, perceptions of: • Typical weekly drinking • Typical number of drinks consumed per drinking occasion • Typical drinking occasions per week |
Lewis MA, 2007b | |||||||
Social Impact Theory | |||||||
Social Identity Theory | |||||||
No name [E-newsletter intervention] [United States] | Moore MJ, 2005 | Extended Parallel Process Model (based on Social Cognitive Theory and the Health Belief Model) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | E-mail newsletter includes a question challenging an alcohol-expectancy belief and refuting that expectancy; presented a “realistic” strategy for reducing the risk of binge drinking | • The questionnaire covered “constructs from prominent psychosocial theories associated with alcohol consumption and underpinning the EPPM, including Social Cognitive Theory and Health Belief Model”; results not published for these measures |
No name [Laptop ER intervention] [United States] | Gregor MA, 2003 | Social Learning Theory | ✓ | ✓ | Intervention based on the Alcohol Misuse Prevention Study curriculum, which in turn was based in Social Learning theory. Content designed to increase knowledge about alcohol, increase refusal skills, and decrease intentions to misuse alcohol. Refusal skills taught by having the participant refuse an offer of beer and then receiving feedback about his or her choice | [No specific outcomes pertaining to theories] | |
Maio RF, 2005 | |||||||
No name [Web-based Substance Use Prevention for Adolescent Girls] [United States] | Schinke S, 2009 | Family interaction theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Exercises designed to build rapport, positive communication and respect between parent and child; emphasizing value of listening to each other, spending time together, understanding one another’s personality, negotiating mutually agreeable resolutions to problems, and giving gifts of time, compliments, and personal favors. Includes modules aimed at refusal skills, self-esteem, goal-setting, racism, assertiveness, peer norms around underage drinking, and conflict and stress management. | • Mother-daughter communication skills • Parental monitoring and rule setting • Drug-refusal self-efficacy. • Normative beliefs assessed with relevant items from the American Drug and Alcohol Survey • Measures of depression, problem solving skills and body esteem. |
Schinke S, 2009 | |||||||
Schinke S, 2009 |