Name of intervention | Related studies | Theoretical constructs/ techniques | Mentioned | Applied | Measured constructs | How Theory Applied | Measures of Theoretical Constructs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
College Drinker's Checkup [United States] | Hester RK, 2012 | Motivational interviewing | ✓ | ✓ | Uses “an empathic and nonjudgmental tone” and contains two decisional balance exercises relating to the pros and cons of alcohol use | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback on users’ quantity and frequency of drinking, estimated peak blood alcohol concentration, and frequency of alcohol-related problems compares to other, same gender students at their school | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |||
Drinkers Assessment and Feedback Tool for College Students (DrAFT-CS) and DRAFT-CS plus moderation skils [United States] | Weaver CC, 2014 | Motivational interviewing | ✓ | ✓ | Video of an interviewer provides information in an “empathic, nonjudgmental manner” | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback on alcohol use behaviors, consequences, and perceived norms | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |||
e-SBINZ [New Zealand] | Kypri K, 2010 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized normative feedback on measures of unhealthy drinking, estimated blood alcohol concentration, estimated costs of user’s drinking. Harm reduction tips and links to treatment | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
Kypri K, 2013 | |||||||
Head On, for grades 6 through 8 [United States] | Marsch LA, 2007 | Manipulating subjective social norms | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Addresses tendency to overestimate the percentage of their peers who use drugs/alcohol | • Beliefs about prevalence of substance use among peers and adults |
In Focus [United Kingdom] | Gare L, 1999 | No theory or construct mentioned | -- | -- | |||
iHealth Study [United States] | Saitz R, 2007 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Gender-specific personalized normative feedback presenting local drinking frequency and intensity norms, assessment and feedback on alcohol-related consequences | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
Motivational interviewing | ✓ | ✓ | -- | • Readiness to change | |||
MyStudentBody.com [United States] | Chiauzzi E, 2005 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Uses a “social norm calculator” to compare users’drinking pattern to peers of same gender, racial or ethnic group, fraternity or sorority membership and athletics participation. | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
Project Chill [United States] | Walton MA, 2013 | Motivational interviewing | ✓ | ✓ | Discussion of goals/values, coping with negative mood, and a decisional balance exercise. In role- plays, participants are asked to make a behavioral choice and consider the consequences in relation to their goals | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
Walton MA, 2014 | |||||||
Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Graphs comparing participants’ use of cannabis and alcohol to norms for age and gender | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |||
Self-efficacy | ✓ | ✓ | Two segments (“You decide: reasons for avoiding using/reasons for using” and “What we covered”) listed self-efficacy (with little explanation of how they support self-efficacy). Role-playing segment activity to build refusal skills | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |||
Refusal Challenges [United States] | Bryson R, 1999 | Self-efficacy | ✓ | ✓ | Students role-played twelve high risk situations with computer- simulated peers. Teaches progressively more complex social skills. | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
SafERteens [United States] | Cunningham RM, 2009 | Motivational interviewing | ✓ | ✓ | Decisional balance exercise examines costs of remaining the same and the benefits/reasons for change. A “buddy” character summarizes the reasons the player checked to show the connections between behaviors and goals. | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
Cunningham RM, 2012 | |||||||
Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback reviews survey responses regarding alcohol,fighting, and weapon carrying and compares users’ behaviors to norms for age and sex. | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |||
Self-efficacy | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | “Supporting self-efficacy for making changes” is a stated objective of the “Reasons to Stay Away from Alcohol and Fighting” segment | • Self-efficacy for avoiding alcohol | ||
THRIVE (Tertiary Health Research Intervention Via Email) [Australia] | Hallet J, 2009 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Assesses alcohol use behaviors and provides personalized feedback on AUDIT scores, the risks of the user’s level of drinking. Provides information on alcohol and harm reduction tips. | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
Kypri K, 2009 | |||||||
No name [At-risk university students personalized normative feedback] [United States] | Butler LH, 2009 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback including a comparison to same-gender peers. Review of the participant’s binge drinking. Information on blood alcohol concentration. Description of calories consumed, money spent and time used drinking. Harm reduction strategies. Mental health and alcohol treatment resources | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
No name [Blood alcohol concentration feedback] [United States] | Thombs DL, 2007 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Blood alcohol concentration measurement at night. Feedback on students’ nighttime blood alcohol concentration (BAC) the following morning, including normative feedback comparing of users’ readings to the average BAC in their residence hall the previous night. | • Participants’ estimation of fellow dormitory residents’ blood alcohol concentration |
No name [E-mailed personalized normative feedback for college students] [United States] | Bryant ZE, 2013 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback on estimated blood alcohol level during typical and peak drinking sessions, negative consequences, weekly mean number of drinks, gender-specific drinking norms, and the amount of time and money devoted to drinking. | • Number of days participants perceived their peers to have drunk alcohol •Amount of alcohol participants perceived their peers to have consumed per drinking occasion |
No name [Gender- specific personalized feedback to reduce alcohol use among college Students] [United States] | Neighbors C, 2010 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Assessment of participant’s drinking behavior, perception of college peer drinking, and graphic and text display of other students’ self-reported drinking behavior. | • Perceived gender- nonspecific and gender- specific drinking norms |
No name [New Zealand university student intervention] [New Zealand] | Kypri K, 2004 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback summarizing recent alcohol consumption, participants’ alcohol risk status, estimate of participants’ peak blood alcohol concentration over the last month, comparison of participants’ drinking with national and campus norms and drinking guidelines. | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
Kypri K, 2008 | |||||||
No name [Intervention to reduce alcohol use among hazardous drinking college Students] [United States] | Palfai TP, 2011 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback on same- gender student norms of total alcohol consumption, heavy drinking episodes, and certain alcohol-related consequences; costs and calories associated with alcohol use; and peak blood alcohol levels. | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
No name [Primary care intervention for multiple health risk behaviors] [New Zealand] | Kypri K, 2005 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | For each of the health behaviors assessed, information on guidelines, social norms for same age and gender, and a description of the advantages of healthy choices in these arenas. | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
No name [Swedish electronic screening and brief intervention] [Sweden] | Elkman DS, 2011 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback consisting of a summary of weekly consumption, frequency of heavy episodic drinking, and highest blood alcohol concentration in the last 3 months; comparison of the respondents’ drinking patterns with safe drinking limits; statements describing participants’ alcohol use compared with university peers; and, if applicable, advice on reducing unhealthy consumption | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
McCambridge J, 2012 | |||||||
McCambridge J, 2013 | |||||||
McCambridge J, 2013 | |||||||
No name [U.K. college student intervention] [United Kingdom] | Bewick BM, 2008 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback on the health risks of the participant’s level of alcohol consumption, the percentage of peers who reported drinking less alcohol, and information on calculating units of alcohol, health risks of high levels of alcohol consumption, and drinking guidelines | [No specific outcomes pertaining to constructs or techniques] | |
No name [Web-based intervention to change perceived norms of college student alcohol use and sexual behavior on spring break] [United States] | Patrick ME, 2014 | Personalized normative feedback | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Personalized feedback on intended sexual behavior and alcohol consumption over spring break, expected consequences of these behaviors, behavioral norms for age and cohort compared to the participant’s perceived norms, participants’ goals for spring break and motivations to limit alcohol use, protective behavioral strategies, and pacts with friends about alcohol use. | • Normative beliefs about underage drinking |