Table 4 Description of studies and study outcomes for CBIs included in the literature review: studies of interventions which did not use a broad theory
Intervention name | Author, year | Setting/ Participants | Intervention description (including dose) | Comparator | Primary outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMADEUS Manipulating subjective social norms | Ekman DS, 2011 | 654 third-semester university students | Personalized normative feedback consisting of 12 possible statements or suggestions about the student's alcohol use | • Control receiving very brief feedback consisting of three statements | • Average weekly alcohol consumption [3 months, 6 months] • Proportion with risky alcohol consumption [3 months, 6 months] • Frequency of heavy episodic drinking [3 months, 6 months] • Peak blood alcohol concentration [3 months, 6 months] |
McCambridge J, 2013 | 14,910 students in semesters 1, 3 and 5 of their studies during the autumn term at two Swedish universities | A 10-item alcohol assessment with personalized normative feedback comparing users’ alcohol use to peers and offering advice on the importance of limiting unhealthy drinking | • Alcohol assessment only without feedback • No contact (neither assessment nor feedback) | • Prevalence of risky drinking [alcohol assessment without feedback, no contact*] • AUDIT-C scores [alcohol assessment without feedback, no contact] | |
College Drinker’s Check-up • Manipulating subjective social norms | Hester RK, 2012 | 144 (study 1) and 82 (study 2) college student volunteers 18–24 who met criteria for heavy, episodic drinking | Screening followed by 3 modules which took ~35 min, including decisional balance exercises, assessment of risks associated with alcohol use, and personalized normative feedback, | • Assessment-only control • Delayed-assessment control | • Standard Drinks per Week (1 month,* 12 months* • Peak BAC in a Typical Week (1 month,* 12 months) • Average Number of Drinks during two heaviest episodes in the past month (1 month,* 12 months*) • Average Peak BAC during two heaviest episodes in the past month (1 month,* 12 months *) |
Drinker’s Assessment and Feedback Tool for College Students (DrAFT-CS) • Motivatoinal interviewing • Social norms theory | Weaver CC, 2014 | 176 heavy drinking college students recruited from undergraduate psychology courses | 45-minute, single-session personalized feedback session | • DrAFT-CS plus moderation skills (DrAFT-CS+) • Moderation skills only • Assessment only | • Estimated blood alcohol concentrations on typical heaviest drinking day (DrAFT-CS and DrAFT-CS+ vs. assessment-only group*) • Drinks per week (DrAFT-CS+ vs. assessment-only group,* all other comparisons non-significant) • Peak drinking episode (DrAFT-CS+ vs. assessment-only group,* all other comparisons non-significant) |
e-SBINZ • Manipulating subjective social norms | Kypri K, 2013 | 1,789 Maori university students who screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking | Single session of web-based alcohol assessment and personalized feedback taking less than 10 min | • Assessment-only control | • Drinking frequency * • Drinks per occasion* • Total volume of alcohol consumed, past 28 days*
|
Head On, for grades 6 through 8 • Manipulating subjective social norms | Marsch LA, 2007 | 272 students in grades 6 through 8 | 15 sessions throughout the school year | • 15 sessions of in-person Life Skills Training | • Knowledge related to substance use prevention* • Self-reported alcohol use • Intentions to use substances • Attitudes towards substances • Beliefs about prevalence of substance use among peers and adults |
iHealth • Manipulating subjective social norms • Motivational interviewing • Self-change approaches | Saitz R, 2007 | 4,008 first-year college students recruited through an email invitation | The minimal intervention [see comparator condition] plus 3 screens providing feedback about personal consequences, costs, and caloric content of user’s alcohol use | • Minimal online brief intervention: an online module consisting of 3 screens of personalized normative feedback | • Readiness to change [women,* men] • Proportion willing to seek help for unhealthy alcohol use [women, men*] • Percentage of participants no longer reporting unhealthy alcohol use one month later • Drinks per week • Drinks per occasion |
In Focus • Manipulating subjective social norms | Gare L, 1999 | 1,000 students ages 12 and 13 | 4 lessons each lasting approximately 40 min | • Assessment-only controls | • Substance use knowledge* (but no change observed on alcohol-specific questions) • Substance use attitudes • Substance use intentions |
MyStudentBody.com • Manipulating subjective social norms | Chiauzzi E, 2005 | 265 students at five public and private, 2-year and 4-year colleges | Four weekly 20-minute sessions | • Alcohol education web site as control | • Binge drinking days/week • Maximum number of drinks/drinking day, past week* • Quantity of consumption • Frequency of consumption • Average consumption • Alcohol composite score* • Peak consumption during special occasions [women*, men] • Total consumption during special occasions [women*, men] • Alcohol related problem behavior [women*, men] • Readiness to change |
Project Chill • Motivational interviewing • Manipulating social norms • Self-efficacy | Walton MA, 2013 | 328 12–18 year-olds at community health clinics reporting past-year cannabis use | Single-session stand-alone interactive animated program | • Assessment-only control • Therapist based intervention | • Cannabis use [3 months, 6 months, 12 months] • Cannabis related consequences [3 months*, 6 months, 12 months] • Alcohol use [3 months, 6 months, 12 months] • Driving under the influence [3 months, 6 months, 12 months] |
Walton MA, 2014 | 714 12–18 year-olds at community health clinics reporting no lifetime cannabis use | Single-session stand-alone interactive animated program (average duration of 33 min) | • Assessment-only control • Therapist based intervention | • Any cannabis use [3 months, 6 months, 12 months*] • Frequency of cannabis use [3 months*, 6 months*, 12 months] • Frequency of other drug use [3 months*, 6 months, 12 months] • Severity of alcohol use [3 months, 6 months, 12 months] | |
Refusal Challenges • Self-efficacy | Bryson R, 1999 | 180 8th-grade students (primarily Hispanic) in rural Southern California | Program played in pairs for one hour a day, typically finished in two days | Assessment-only control | • Refusal skill scores [posttest*, follow-up*] |
SafERteens • Motivational interviewing • Social norms theory • Social Cognitive Theory • Transtheoretical Model • Theory of planned behavior • Health belief model | Cunningham RM, 2009 | 533 patients ages 14 to 18 who presented to the emergency department for illness or injury and reporting past-year violence and alcohol use | 35-minute single session interactive, animated program including tailored feedback, exercises identifying reasons to stay away from drinking and fighting, and role-play scenarios | • Assessment-only control • Therapist-delivered intervention | Relative to assessment-only control: • Alcohol use [post-test, 3 month follow-up] • Attitudes toward alcohol and violence [post-test*, 3 month follow-up*] • Self-efficacy for avoiding alcohol [post-test*, 3 month follow-up] • Readiness to change alcohol use [post-test, 3 month follow-up] |
Cunningham RM, 2012 | 726 patients ages 14 to 18 who presented to the emergency department for illness or injury and reporting past-year violence and alcohol use | Same as above (median time to complete was 29 min) | • Assessment-only control • Therapist assisted by a computer | • Peer aggression [computer, therapist*] • Peer victimization [computer, therapist*] • Violence-related consequences [computer, therapist] • Alcohol misuse [computer, therapist] • Binge drinking [computer, therapist] • Alcohol-related consequences [computer, therapist] | |
THRIVE (Tertiary Health Research Intervention Via Email) • Manipulating subjective social norms | Kypri K, 2009 | 2,435 undergraduates reporting unhealthy drinking | Age- and gender-specific personalized feedback including explanation of the user’s AUDIT score, the calories in and costs of drinking, and links to other resources | • Assessment-only control | • Drinking frequency [1 month*, 6 months*] • Typical occasion quantity of alcohol consumed [1 month*, 6 months] • Overall volume of alcohol consumed [1 month*, 6 months*] • Personal and academic problems score [1 month, 6 months] • Prevalence of binge drinking [1 month, 6 months] • Prevalence of heavy drinking [1 month,* 6 months*] |
No name [At-risk university students personalized normative feedback] • Manipulating subjective social norms | Butler LH, 2009 | 84 undergraduates who reported at least two binge episodes and two alcohol related problems in the past 28 days | A single session in which participants spent an average of 11 min reviewing their feedback | • Assessment-only control • Face-to-face intervention | • Drinks per week [CBI vs. face-to-face, CBI vs. control*] • Drinking occasions per week [CBI vs. face-to-face, CBI vs. control*] • Binge drinking days/month [CBI vs. face-to-face*, CBI vs. control] • Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index scores [CBI vs. face-to-face, CBI vs. control] |
No name [Blood Alcohol Concentration Feedback] • Personalized normative feedback | Thombs DL, 2007 | 386 residents of certain freshman dormitories, once a night, Wednesday. through Saturday | Residents’ blood alcohol concentration assessed at night. Readings and normative feedback available online the next day | • Students in dormitories in which blood alcohol level but not information on norms was reported | • Observed blood alcohol content* (lower in comparator group) |
No name [E-mailed personalized normative feedback for college students] • Manipulating subjective social norms | Bryant ZE, 2013 | 310 college students enrolled in introduction to psychology courses | A single e-mail containing personalized feedback on alcohol use | • E-mailed generic feedback | • Drinks in a given week* • Number of days being drunk in the previous 30 days* • Number of days they perceived their peers to have drunk alcohol* • Amount of alcohol they perceived their peers to have consumed per drinking occasion* |
No name [Gender-specific personalized feedback to reduce alcohol use among college Students] • Social Comparison Theory • Social Identity Theory • Self-categorization Theory | Neighbors C, 2010 | 818 first-year college students who engaged in binge drinking at least once in the past month | “Extremely brief” gender-specific and gender-nonspecific personalized normative feedback based on a 50-minute survey delivered a single time or biannually | • Attentional control | • Typical weekly drinking amount • Alcohol-related problems • Heavy episodic drinking |
No name [Intervention to reduce alcohol use among hazardous drinking college Students] • Personalized normative feedback | Palfai TP, 2011 | 119 hazardous drinking students in an introduction to psychology class | Single-session gender and university-specific personalized normative feedback on alcohol consumption and drinking consequences, plus information on costs and calories associated with drinking | • Information on healthy eating and sleep habits | • Number of drinks per week* • Episodes of heavy drinking |
No name [New Zealand university student presonalized normative feedback] • Manipulating subjective social norms | Kypri K, 2004 | 104 students recruited in reception area of the student health service who screened positive on an AUDIT test | 10–15 min of web-based assessment and personalized feedback | • Assessment-only control | • Total alcohol consumption [6 weeks,* 6 months] • Heavy drinking episode frequency [6 weeks,* 6 months] • Number of personal problems [6 weeks,* 6 months*] • Academic problems score [6 weeks, 6 months*] |
Kypri K, 2008 | 576 students attending a university health care service who screened positive for hazardous drinking | Personalized feedback, delivered either once or 3 times (1 and 6 months after the intervention) | • Informational pamphlet | • AUDIT scores [12 months: single-dose,* multi-dose*] • Frequency of drinking [6 months: single-dose,* multi-dose,* 12 months: single-dose, multi-dose] • Typical drinking occasion quantity [6 months: single-dose, multi-dose, 12 months: single-dose, multi-dose] • Total alcohol consumption [6 months: single-dose,* multi-dose,* 12 months: single-dose,* multi-dose] • Very heavy drinking episode frequency [6 months: single-dose, multi-dose,* 12 months: single-dose, multi-dose] • Number of personal problems [6 months: single-dose, multi-dose, 12 months: single-dose, multi-dose] • Academic problems score [6 months: single-dose,* multi-dose,* 12 months: single-dose,* multi-dose*] | |
No name [Primary care intervention for multiple health risk behaviors] • Personalized normative feedback | Kypri K, 2005 | 218 university students 17–24 attending a student health service | Feedback on reported health behaviors with information on official guidelines and norms among peers | • Assessment-only control • Minimal contact (at baseline blood pressure and demographics but no assessment of behaviors) | • Prevalence of hazardous drinking • Peak estimated blood alcohol concentration |
No name [U.K. college student personalized normative feedback] • Manipulating subjective social norms | Bewick BM, 2008 | 506 respondents to a university-wide student survey | Online personalized feedback with sections on levels of alcohol consumption, social norms, and standard advice and drinking information | • Assessment-only control | • CAGE score • Average number of alcoholic drinks consumed per drinking occasion* • Alcohol consumption over the last week |
No name [Intervention to change sexual and alcohol norms for college students] • Personalized normative feedback | Patrick ME, 2014 | 271 college students between the ages of 18 and 21 who planned to go on a spring break trip with their friends | Personalized feedback intervention covering drinking and sex over spring break, reasons to avoid risky alcohol use, and behavior pacts with friends | • Assessment-only control | • Maximum drinks reported over spring break • Total drinks reported over spring break • Perceived norms for spring break drinking and sex* • Protective behavioral strategies • Spring break sexual behavior • Alcohol-related consequences reported over spring break • Sex-related consequences over spring break |