Table 3 Description of studies and study outcomes for CBIs included in the literature review: studies of interventions which used a broad theory
Intervention name/Theories or constructs used | Author, year | Setting/Participants | Intervention description (including dose) | Comparator | Primary outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
21 Web BASICS • Theory of Planned Behavior | Neighbors C, 2009 | 295 university students intending to have 2 or more drinks on their 21st birthday | Single-sessions web-based personalized feedback sent with an electronic birthday card | • Assessment only control | • Estimated blood alcohol concentration on 21st birthday* |
Neighbors C, 2012 | 599 university students intending to binge drink on their 21st birthday | Single-session 21st Birthday Web –BASICS, personalized feedback covering intended drinking and drinking consequences | • 21st birthday in-person BASICS • 21st birthday in-person BASICS plus friend intervention • 21st birthday web BASICS plus friend intervention • BASICS • Attention control. | • Actual alcohol consumption • Actual estimated blood alcohol concentration * • Alcohol-related consequences during 21st birthday | |
Alcohol 101 • Social Cognitive Theory • Theory of Reasoned Action • Transtheoretical model | Barnett NP, 2004 | 117 mandated violators of college alcohol policy | Alcohol 101: Single 45-minute session featuring a virtual party | • Brief, in-person motivational intervention, no booster • Brief, in-person motivational intervention, plus booster session • Alcohol 101, plus booster session | • Frequency of drinking (number of days drinking and number of heavy drinking days in the past month) • Drinks per week |
Barnett NP, 2007 | 225 mandated violators of college alcohol policy | Alcohol 101: Single 45 min session | • One-on-one intervention delivered by counselors trained in motivational interviewing | Past month: • Number of drinking days [3, 12 months* (CBI inferior)] • Number of heavy drinking days [3, 12 months] • Average number of drinks per drinking day [3, 12 months* (CBI inferior)] • Average estimated BAC [3, 12 months] Past 90-days: • Help seeking [3,* (CBI inferior) 12 months*] • Alcohol problems [3, 12 months] | |
Carey KB, 2009 | 198 mandated violators of college alcohol policy | Alcohol 101 Plus: 60 min single session | • Brief motivational intervention using personalized feedback, discussion of alcohol-related consequences | • Reductions in drinking [men, women* (BMI showed greater reductions)] | |
Carey KB, 2010 | 677 mandated violators of college alcohol policy | Alcohol 101 Plus: 60 min single session | • In-person brief motivational intervention • Alcohol Edu for Sanctions • Delayed control | • Alcohol consumption* – females but not males reduced drinking more after the BMI than after either CBI • Alcohol problems • Recidivism | |
Donahue B, 2004 | 113 undergraduates earning academic credit | Alcohol 101: Single 45-minute session | • 30 min of cognitive behavioral therapy | • Number of drinks consumed per occasion • Number of alcoholic drinks consumed* (favoring CBT) • Number of days drinking alcohol* (favoring CBT) • Awareness of the consequences of alcohol use* • Greater reported propensity to be cautious in situations involving alcohol* | |
Lau-Barraco C, 2008 | 217 students who had at least 2 episodes of heavy drinking in the past month, drank between 5 and 40 drinks weekly, and had no history of alcohol treatment | Alcohol 101: 90 to 120 min | • Assessment-only control • Expectancy challenge (a 90–120 min exercise in which participants drink an unknown beverage and must guess who really drank alcohol) | • Number of standard drinks per week* (favoring the expectancy challenge) • Frequency of heavy episodic drinking* (favoring the expectancy challenge) • Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire scores: global positive changes* (favoring the expectancy challenge), Social • Assertiveness sub-scale* (favoring the expectancy challenge), social and physical pleasure sub-scale, relaxation and tension reduction sub-scale, power & aggression sub-scale and sexual enhancement sub-scale | |
Mastroleo NR, 2011 | 225 mandated violators of college alcohol policy | Alcohol 101 Plus: 60 min single session | • Brief, single-session intervention led by master’s or PhD level clinicians with or without a 25-min 1-month booster session • Alcohol 101 Plus and a 1-month 25-minutes booster session with the program | • Number of heavy drinking days [Alcohol 101 vs. brief counseling] • Average number of drinks per drinking day [Alcohol 101 vs. brief counseling] • Alcohol problems [Alcohol 101 vs. brief counseling] | |
Murphy JG, 2010 | 74 college students recruited at a student health center | Alcohol 101 Plus: 90 min single session | • A single, face-to-face BASICS session | • Normative and self-ideal discrepancy* (favoring BASICS over Alcohol 101) • Motivation to change drinking* (favoring BASICS over Alcohol 101) • Total drinks per week • Past month frequency of heavy drinking | |
Reis J, 2000 | 912 students 16–18 year old and 2,565 students 19–25 years old | Alcohol 101: preliminary version | • Assessment-only control (older and younger groups) • Alternative alcohol education program | • Expectations about the consequences of alcohol use (some measures*) • Self-efficacy to handle alcohol safely (some measures*) • Perceived peer norms regarding drinking [not reported] | |
Sharmer L, 2001 | 370 undergraduates earning academic credit | Alcohol-101: 3 60-minute presentations in an interactive classroom setting | • Classrooms receiving teacher-centered motivational speech • Classrooms receiving assessment only | • Attitudes towards alcohol [4, 8,* 12 weeks] • Knowledge scores [4,* (control scored higher) 8,* (controls scored higher) 12 weeks] • Self-reported alcohol use behavior | |
AlcoholEdu • Expectancy theory • Social Cognitive Theory • Social Norms Theory | Croom K, 2009 | 3,216 incoming first-year college students | AlcoholEdu (2006 edition): An interactive 2- to 3-hour web-based alcohol prevention course presented in two parts | • Assessment only control | • Alcohol-related knowledge* • Likelihood of playing drinking games* • Likelihood of drinking alcohol • Number of drinks in past 2 weeks • Protective behaviors • Risk-related behaviors • High-risk drinking • Alcohol-related harms |
Hustad JTP, 2010 | 82 incoming first-year college students in fulfillment of a mandatory alcohol education requirement | AlcoholEdu and The Alcohol eCHECKUP TO GO | • Assessment only control | • Typical week alcohol consumption [eCHUG* and AlcoholEdu* vs. control] • Heavy episodic drinking [eCHUG* and AlcoholEdu* vs. control] • Typical and peak alcohol consumption [eCHUG* and AlcoholEdu* vs. control] • Alcohol-related consequences [AlcoholEdu* vs. control] | |
Lovecchio CP, 2010 | 1,620 incoming first-year college students | AlcoholEdu, version 8.0 | • Assessment only control | • Alcohol-related knowledge* • Total number of drinks consumed in past 2 weeks* • Heavy episodic drinking* • High risk alcohol behaviors • Protective alcohol behaviors • Responsible drinking behaviors (favoring control group)* • Negative drinking consequences: behavioral* and psychological • Acceptance of others’ alcohol use* and acceptance of others’ everyday alcohol use • Expectancies of alcohol use: positive* and negative; | |
Paschall MJ, 2011 | 2,400 first-year college students at 30 universities | AlcoholEdu, version 9.0 | • Assessment-only control | • Past-30-day alcohol use [Fall*, Spring] • Average number of drinks per occasion [Fall*, Spring] • Binge drinking [Fall*, Spring] | |
Paschall MJ, 2011 | Same as above | AlcoholEdu, version 9.0 | • Assessment-only control | Reports of 7 types of alcohol-related problems: • Physiological [Fall*, Spring] • Academic [Fall, Spring] • Social [Fall*, Spring] • Driving under the influence/ riding with drinking drivers [Fall, Spring] • Aggression [Fall, Spring] • Sexual risk [Fall, Spring] • Victimization [Fall*, Spring] • All problems [Fall*, Spring] | |
Wall A, 2006 | 3,552 members of fraternities and sororities at universities in the United States and Canada | Pre-2006 edition, version and duration not specified | • Assessment only control, post-test only | • Heavy drinking in past 2 weeks* • Negative academic consequences* • Negative physical health or work consequences • Drinking and driving* • Hangover/ mental impact* • Negative sexual consequences* | |
Wall AF, 2007 | 20,150 college students, pre-enrollment, during enrollment, or in fulfillment of first-year requirement | AlcoholEdu (2006 edition) | • Delayed intervention control group | • academic consequences* • hangover/ mental impact* • heavy consumption days* • intentional risky behavior* • positive expectancies of alcohol use* | |
Wyatt TM, 2013 | 14,310 first-year college students | AlcoholEdu (edition not specified) | • No control, quasi-experimental analysis of time-series data | • Substantial decreases in alcohol consumption (any consumption and heavy drinking) and alcohol- or drug-related negative consequences | |
Climate Schools: Alcohol Module/Alcohol and The CLIMATE Schools Combined • Social Influence Approach | Newton NC, 2009 | 764 13-year olds at ten secondary schools | Climate Schools: Alcohol and Cannabis prevention course (consisting of two sets of six 40 min lessons) | • Schools allocated to usual health classes | • Alcohol knowledge* • Alcohol consumption* • Alcohol expectancies • Alcohol-related harms |
Newton NC, 2009 | 764 13-year olds at ten secondary schools | Climate Schools: Alcohol (consisting of a set of six 40-minute lessons) | • Schools allocated to usual classes | • Alcohol knowledge [immediate,* 6-month follow-up*] • Alcohol use [immediate,* 6-month follow-up] • Alcohol expectancies [immediate, 6-month follow-up] • Frequency of drinking to excess [immediate, 6-month follow-up] • Alcohol-related harms [immediate, 6-month follow-up] | |
Newton NC, 2010 | 764 13-year olds at ten secondary schools | Climate Schools: Alcohol (consisting of a set of six 40-minute lessons) | • Schools allocated to usual health classes | At 12-months: • Alcohol knowledge* • Average weekly alcohol consumption* • Frequency of drinking to excess* • Alcohol expectancies • Alcohol-related harms | |
Vogl L, 2009 | 1,466 13-year-old, eighth-grade students | CLIMATE Schools: Alcohol (six lessons) | • Schools allocated to usual classes | • Alcohol knowledge* • Positive social expectancies of alcohol use* • Alcohol consumption [females,* males] • Alcohol-related harms [females,* males] • Frequency of binge drinking [females,* males] | |
College Alc • Problem Behavior Theory • Theory of Planned Behavior | Bersamin M, 2007 | 622 incoming first-year students | 5-unit, 3-hour course including graphics and text, interactive animations, online assignments, readings, quizzes and video clips | • Assessment-only control | • Frequency of heavy drinking [baseline drinkers,* baseline non-drinkers] • Felt drunk [baseline drinkers,* baseline nondrinkers] • Alcohol-related consequences [baseline drinkers,* baseline non-drinkers] |
Paschall MJ 2006 | 370 incoming first-year students | Same as above | • Assessment-only control | At the end of the fall semester: • Alcohol-related knowledge* • Positive attitudes toward alcohol use* • Alcohol use • Heavy drinking • Alcohol-related problems • Alcohol expectancies (positive and negative) • Normative beliefs • Intentions to use harm-minimization approaches* | |
Wyrick DL, 2005 | 65 college students, for academic credit | Same as above | Pre- vs. post-test design (no control) | • Normative alcohol beliefs* • Alcohol expectancies* • Alcohol-related attitudes • Heavy alcohol use • Problems associated with alcohol use* | |
Check Your Drinking • Social Norms Theory | Cunningham JA, 2012 | 425 college students meeting criteria for risky drinking | Check Your Drinking (University Edition) including national norms for age, gender and country of origin (US and Canada) and information on caloric content and impact on weight of alcohol | • Controls not provided access to Check Your Drinking | • AUDIT-C scores at 6-week follow-up* • 18 % of study participants randomized to receive the intervention reported using it |
Doumas DM, 2008 | 59 first-year student athletes in NCAA division 1 | 15 min Web-based program (an earlier version of Check Your Drinking) | • Online education (15 min on an educational Web page) | • Alcohol consumption [high risk drinkers,* low risk drinkers] • Perceptions of peer drinking [high risk drinkers,* low risk drinkers] | |
Doumas DM, 2009 | 76 mandated violators of a university alcohol or drug policy | 15 min Web-based program | • Alcohol module of The Judicial Educator | At 30-day follow-up: • Weekly drinking quantity* • Peak alcohol consumption* • Frequency of drinking to intoxication* • Estimates of peer drinking* • Alcohol-related problems | |
eCHECKUP TO GO (eCHUG) • Expectancy theory • Social Norms Theory | Alfonso J, 2013 | 173 mandated violators of college alcohol policy | A 10–15 min single session self-directed online module | Personalized feedback delivered face-to-face: • Individually • In groups | • Alcohol use (no between group differences) • Alcohol-related harms (no between group differences, significant reductions over time in CHUG group) |
Doumas DM, 2014 | 513 9th graders | eCHECKUP TO GO for high school students, 30-minute module | • A school that received assessment only | • Quantity of weekly drinking • Drinking frequency * • Alcohol-related consequences* • Positive alcohol expectancies* • Positive beliefs about alcohol* • Normative beliefs regarding peer drinking | |
Doumas DM, 2009 | 80 first-year college students participating in a voluntary orientation seminar | A 10–15 min single session self-directed online module | • Assessment-only control | • Weekly drinking quantity [high risk students,* low risk students] • Frequency of drinking to intoxication [high risk students,* low risk students] • Alcohol-related problems [high risk students,* low risk students] | |
Hustad JTP, 2010 | See entry for this study under AlcoholEdu | -- | -- | -- | |
Murphy JG, 2010 | 207 college students enrolled in introductory courses reporting at least one past-month heavy drinking episode | eCHECKUP TO GO, used for approximately 40 min | • A single, face-to-face BASICS session • Assessment-only control | • Normative discrepancy • Self-ideal discrepancy * (favoring BASICS) • Motivation to change drinking • Total drinks per week* (favoring BASICS) • Past month frequency of heavy drinking* (favoring BASICS) | |
Walters ST, 2007 | 106 first-year, heavy drinking college students | Standard eCHECKUP TO GO, duration not described | • Assessment-only control | Among those who reported at least one heavy drinking episode in the past month: • Drinks per week [8 weeks,* 16 weeks] • Peak blood alcohol level [8 weeks,* 16 weeks] • Alcohol-related consequences [8 weeks, 16 weeks] • Perceived drinking norms [8 weeks,* 16 weeks] | |
Walters ST, 2009 | 279 college students who reported at least one heavy-drinking episode | Web-based personalized feedback modified from the electronic-Check-Up to Go | • a single motivational interviewing (MI) session without feedback • a single MI session with feedback • assessment only | • Drinks per week [MI with feedback significantly better than Web-based feedback at 3 and 6 months] • Peak blood alcohol content [MI with feedback significantly better than Web-based feedback at 3 and 6 months] • Alcohol-related problems [MI with feedback significantly better than Web-based feedback at 3 and 6 months] | |
Lifeskills Training CD-ROM • Social Learning Theory • Problem Behavior Theory • Self-derogation theory • Peer cluster theories | Williams C, 2005 | 123 sixth and seventh graders completing the program at home over summer break | 10 sessions | • Assessment-only control | • Substance use frequency • Pro-drug attitudes* • Normative expectations for peer and adult substance use* • Anxiety reduction skills* • Relaxation skills knowledge* |
Michigan Prevention and Alcohol Safety for Students (M-PASS) • Health Belief Model • Precaution Adoption Process Model • Theory of Planned Behavior • Transtheoretical Model | Bingham C, 2010 | 1,137 first-year college students | 4 10- to 15-minute interactive online Sessions | • Assessment-only controls designated by dormitory | • Advanced stages of change* • Tolerance of drinking and drink/driving* • Reasons to drink reported* • Use of strategies to avoid at-risk drinking* |
Bingham C, 2011 | Same as above | Same as above | Same as above | At 3-month follow-up: • Frequency/quantity of alcohol use* • Binge drinking* • Frequency of riding with a drink driver* • Using strategies to avoid high-risk drinking* • Frequency of drink-driving • Stages of change* • Tolerance of drinking • Reasons to drink* • Reasons not to drink* • Tolerance of drink driving* | |
PAS [Prevention of alcohol use in students] • Theory of planned behavior • Social cognitive theory | Koning IM, 2009 | 3,490 first-year high school students and their parents at school and school events | 4 digital, classroom-based lessons plus a printed booster lesson a year later | • Parent intervention • Parent intervention combined with student CBI • Standard alcohol education curriculum | • Incidence of (heavy) weekly alcohol use [10 and 22 months] • Frequency of monthly drinking [10 and 22 months] |
Project Fitness • Behavior-Image Model (which is supported by Prospect Theory) | Moore MJ, 2012 | 200 students approached in a university’s common areas | Single 20-minute session on 7 health behaviors including alcohol use, that asks screening questions and provides gain-framed messages about healthy choices | • Assessment-only control | Immediately following intervention: • Alcohol intentions* • Alcohol prototype image [perceived similarity to those who drink]* • Willingness to be seen as someone who drinks a lot* • Alcohol behavior coupling [whether alcohol is perceived to interfere with other health behaviors] • Alcohol social norms* |
Reach Out Central • Elaboration likelihood model • Social Cognitive Theory | Shandley K, 2010 | 266 18–25 year olds playing independently, recruited through online advertisements or invitations from secondary school teachers and university lecturers | An open-ended web-based interactive game in which a character explores and interacts with a virtual environment, no set length | • Pre-, post-evaluation with 2-month follow-up | • Alcohol use [females*, males] • Use of coping strategies [females*, males] • Psychological distress [females*, males] • Resilience and satisfaction with life [females*, males] • Mental health literacy [females*, males*] • Help-seeking [females*, males*] |
RealTeen • Social Learning Theory | Schwinn TM, 2010 | 236 13- and 14-year-old girls recruited through a youth-oriented web site | A homepage (offering features accessible at any time) and 12 intervention sessions taking about 25-minutes each | • Assessment-only control | • Alcohol use [post-test, 6-month follow-up*] • Marijuana use [post-test, 6-month follow-up*] • Poly drug use [post-test, 6-month follow-up*] • Total substance use (alcohol and drugs) [post-test, 6-month follow-up*] |
What Do You Drink • I-change Model (integration of several approaches including Fishbein-Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action, TTM and Social Learning Theory) • Social Cognitive Theory | Voogt CV, 2013 | 907 18- to 24-year olds reporting heavy drinking in the past 6 months and motivation to change their alcohol use | A brief online intervention including personalized normative feedback, a segment in which participants set a goal for their drinking, and a portion on refusal strategies | • Assessment-only control | • Weekly alcohol consumption [1 month, 6 months] • Frequency of binge drinking [1 month, 6 months] • Heavy drinking [1 month, 6 months] |
Voogt CV, 2014 | Same as above | Same as above | • Assessment-only control | • Drinking refusal self-efficacy* | |
Your Decisions Count– Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs • Transtheoretical Model | Evers KE, 2012 | 1,590 students in grades 6–9 who reported having ever using alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or other drugs | Three 30-minutes internet-based modules | • Assessment-only control | • Percentage of “ever-users” who were using alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other drugs [3 months,* 14 months] • Likelihood of moving into action/maintenance stage of change [3 months,* 14 months] • Post-test Cessation Rates Among current substance users [3 months,* 14 months] |
No name [Asian-American Mother Daughter Intervention] • Family interaction theory | Fang L, 2010 | 108 Asian–American girls aged 10–14 years and their mothers recruited online or through community service agencies | 9-session web-based substance use prevention program with each session taking about 45 min | • Assessment-only control | 1-year follow-up: • Depressed mood* • Self-efficacy and refusal skills* • Levels of mother–daughter closeness* • Mother–daughter communication* • Maternal monitoring * • Family rules against substance use* • Instances of alcohol, marijuana, and illicit prescription drug use* • Intentions to use substances in the future* |
Fang L, 2013 | Same as above | Same as above | • Assessment-only control | 2-year follow-up: • Depressed mood • Self-efficacy and refusal skills* • Levels of mother–daughter closeness* • Mother–daughter communication* • Maternal monitoring * • Family rules against substance use* • Instances of alcohol, marijuana, and illicit prescription drug use* • Intentions to use substances in the future* • Substance use normative beliefs • Body esteem | |
No name [Black and hispanic mother-daughter intervention] • Attachment Theory • Deviant behavior proneness theory • Family interaction theory • Social Learning Theory | Schinke S, 2011 | 546 pairs of girls ages 10 to 13 and their mothers from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut recruited from postings on craigslist.org and advertisements in New York City newspapers | 10 sessions with varying completion times amongst the participants | • Assessment-only control | • Mother-daughter communication [reported by daughter,* reported by mother] • Perceptions of family rules against substance use [reported by daughter,* reported by mother] • Perceptions of parental monitoring of extracurricular activities, whereabouts, and friends [reported by daughter,* reported by mother] • Daughters’ normative beliefs about peer substance use* • Depression among daughters* • Self-efficacy to avoid alcohol, tobacco and drug use among daughters * • Alcohol use among daughters * • Daughters’ intentions to smoke, drink, and use drugs when they are adults* |
No name [College freshman intervention] • Social Comparison Theory • Social Identity Theory • Social Impact Theory | Lewis MA, 2007 | 316 college students in psychology classes who indicated at least one heavy drinking episode | After a baseline survey, gender-specific or gender-neutral personalized feedback provided on screen and as a print-out | • Assessment-only control | • Overall alcohol consumption* • Average number of drinks consumed/past month • Typical number of drinks consumed/occasion* • Typical drinking frequency* |
Lewis MA, 2007 | 185 first-year college students reporting at least one heavy-drinking episode in the past month | Same as above | • Assessment-only control | • Perceived same-sex norms surrounding drinking behavior [gender-specific PNF*, gender-neutral PNF] • Perceived gender-neutral norms surrounding drinking behavior [gender-specific PNF*, gender-neutral PNF*] • Drinks per week [gender-specific PNF,* gender-neutral PNF] • Drinking frequency [gender-specific PNF*, gender-neutral PNF*] | |
No name [E-newsletter intervention] • Extended Parallel Process Model (based on Social Cognitive Theory and the Health Belief Model) | Moore MJ, 2005 | 116 juniors and seniors enrolled in 3 college courses aged 18 to 25 years with access to an active e-mail account | A series of 4 weekly newsletters in electronic format | • Newsletters in print format | • Past-year drinking frequency • Past 30-day drinking frequency • Quantity • Binge-drinking frequency • Get “drunk” frequency • Get “drunk” quantity • Greatest number of drinks • 2-week binge-drinking frequency |
No name [Laptop ER intervention] • Social Learning Theory | Gregor MA, 2003 | 671 patients aged 14 to 18 years presenting to the ED within 24 h after an acute minor in- jury | Single-session approximately 25 min long | • None | • Attitudes about their alcohol use* |
Maio RF, 2005 | Same as above | Same as above | • Assessment-only control | • Alcohol Misuse Index scores [3 months, 12 months] • Binge-drinking episodes [3 months, 12 months] | |
No name [Web-based Substance Use Prevention for Adolescent Girls] • Family interaction theory • Self-efficacy • Manipulation subjective social norms • Cognitive behavioral therapy | Schinke S, 2009 | 202 girls ages 10 to 13 and their mothers from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut recruited through online or print advertising | 14 computer-mediated intervention modules (duration not reported) | • Assessment-only control | At two-month follow-up: • Alcohol consumption in the past 7 days,* 30 days,* and year* • Conflict management and alcohol-use refusal skills* • Mother-daughter communication skills* • Daughters’ report of parental monitoring and rule setting* • Normative beliefs about underage drinking* • Self-efficacy about their ability to avoid underage drinking* • Intentions to drink as adults* • Mother-daughter communication skills [reported by daughters*, reported by mothers*] • Parental monitoring and rule setting [reported by daughters,* reported by mothers*] |
Schinke S, 2009 | 916 girls 11 to 13 and their mothers from New York, New Jersey recruited through radio, print, internet and public transit advertising | 9 computer-mediated intervention modules, each taking approximately 45 min | • Assessment-only control | At two-year follow-up: • Alcohol consumption in the past 30 days [immediate follow-up, 1 year follow-up*] | |
Schinke S, 2009 | 591 girls 11 to 13 and their mothers from New York, New Jersey recruited through radio, print, internet and public transit advertising | Same as above | • Assessment-only control | At one-year follow-up: • Alcohol consumption in the past 30 days [2 year follow-up*] |