Alcohol assessment and feedback by email for university students: main findings from a randomised controlled trial

Background Brief interventions can be efficacious in changing alcohol consumption and increasingly take advantage of the internet to reach high-risk populations such as students. Aims To evaluate the effectiveness of a brief online intervention, controlling for the possible effects of the research process. Method A three-arm parallel groups design was used to explore the magnitude of the feedback and assessment component effects. The three groups were: alcohol assessment and feedback (group 1); alcohol assessment only without feedback (group 2); and no contact, and thus neither assessment nor feedback (group 3). Outcomes were evaluated after 3 months via an invitation to participate in a brief cross-sectional lifestyle survey. The study was undertaken in two universities randomising the email addresses of all 14910 students (the AMADEUS-1 study, trial registration: ISRCTN28328154). Results Overall, 52% (n = 7809) of students completed follow-up, with small differences in attrition between the three groups. For each of the two primary outcomes, there was one statistically significant difference between groups, with group 1 having 3.7% fewer risky drinkers at follow-up than group 3 (P = 0.006) and group 2 scoring 0.16 points lower than group 3 on the three alcohol consumption questions from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) (P = 0.039). Conclusions This study provides some evidence of population-level benefit attained through intervening with individual students.

[1]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  N. Heather Can screening and brief intervention lead to population-level reductions in alcohol-related harm? , 2012, Addiction Science & Clinical Practice.

[3]  Reza Oskrochi,et al.  Personalised Normative Feedback for Preventing Alcohol Misuse in University Students: Solomon Three-Group Randomised Controlled Trial , 2012, PloS one.

[4]  S. Maisto,et al.  Subject reactivity effects and alcohol treatment outcome research. , 2000, Journal of studies on alcohol.

[5]  Richard Rowe,et al.  Adult Consequences of Late Adolescent Alcohol Consumption: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies , 2011, PLoS medicine.

[6]  Diana Elbourne,et al.  Can Research Assessments Themselves Cause Bias in Behaviour Change Trials? A Systematic Review of Evidence from Solomon 4-Group Studies , 2011, PloS one.

[7]  Kypros Kypri,et al.  The Use of Emerging Technologies in Alcohol Treatment , 2011, Alcohol research & health : the journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

[8]  Jürgen Rehm,et al.  Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders , 2009, The Lancet.

[9]  Jack Darkes,et al.  The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: state of the science and challenges for research. , 2003, Addiction.

[10]  The Swedish National Institute of Public Health: public health policy report 2010. , 2011, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health.

[11]  P. Donnelly Alcohol, no ordinary commodity, research and public policy , 2010 .

[12]  E. Thorsteinsson,et al.  Computer-delivered interventions for alcohol and tobacco use: a meta-analysis. , 2010, Addiction.

[13]  Kypros Kypri,et al.  Can Simply Answering Research Questions Change Behaviour? Systematic Review and Meta Analyses of Brief Alcohol Intervention Trials , 2011, PloS one.

[14]  T. Babor Ethics matter: to authors, editors and those we serve. , 2003, Addiction.

[15]  Marcus Bendtsen,et al.  Alcohol email assessment and feedback study dismantling effectiveness for university students (AMADEUS-1): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial , 2012, Trials.

[16]  D. Foxcroft,et al.  Social norms interventions to reduce alcohol misuse in university or college students. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[17]  Matthew Hotopf,et al.  Using number of failed contact attempts to adjust for non‐ignorable non‐response , 2006 .

[18]  J. Mccambridge [Commentary] Research assessments: instruments of bias and brief interventions of the future? , 2009, Addiction.

[19]  N. Horton,et al.  Web-based alcohol intervention for Mäori university students: double-blind, multi-site randomized controlled trial , 2012, Addiction.

[20]  Christina Ölvander,et al.  Alcohol use among university students in Sweden measured by an electronic screening instrument , 2009, BMC public health.

[21]  R. Room,et al.  Alcohol and public health , 2005, The Lancet.

[22]  G. Eysenbach The Law of Attrition , 2005, Journal of medical Internet research.

[23]  J. Mccambridge,et al.  Comparative psychometric study of a range of hazardous drinking measures administered online in a youth population. , 2008, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[24]  Godfrey Fowler,et al.  THE STRATEGY OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE , 1992 .

[25]  D. Kivlahan,et al.  The AUDIT Alcohol Consumption Questions (AUDIT-C) An Effective Brief Screening Test for Problem Drinking , 2010 .

[26]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[27]  M. Lipsey,et al.  The Way in Which Intervention Studies Have “Personality” and why it is Important to Meta-Analysis , 2001, Evaluation & the health professions.

[28]  C. Mathers,et al.  Global burden of disease in young people aged 10–24 years: a systematic analysis , 2011, The Lancet.

[29]  J. Finney,et al.  Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta-analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking populations. , 2002, Addiction.

[30]  R. Borland,et al.  Population-level effects of automated smoking cessation help programs: a randomized controlled trial. , 2013, Addiction.

[31]  Zarnie Khadjesari,et al.  Can stand-alone computer-based interventions reduce alcohol consumption? A systematic review. , 2011, Addiction.

[32]  P. Bendtsen,et al.  Electronic screening and brief intervention for risky drinking in Swedish university students--a randomized controlled trial. , 2011, Addictive behaviors.

[33]  K. Kypri,et al.  Web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention for Māori and non-Māori: the New Zealand e-SBINZ trials , 2010, BMC public health.

[34]  G. Zarkin,et al.  Costs of alcohol screening and brief intervention in medical settings: a review of the literature. , 2012, Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs.

[35]  S. M. Rogers,et al.  Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. , 1998, Science.

[36]  Alcohol , 1984, Peptides.

[37]  J. Mccambridge,et al.  RCT of effectiveness of motivational enhancement therapy delivered by nurses for hazardous drinkers in primary care units in Thailand. , 2010, Alcohol and alcoholism.

[38]  Jim McCambridge,et al.  How big is the elephant in the room? Estimated and actual IT costs in an online behaviour change trial , 2010, BMC Research Notes.

[39]  K. Carey,et al.  Computer-delivered interventions to reduce college student drinking: a meta-analysis. , 2009, Addiction.

[40]  K. Kypri,et al.  Bayes' Theorem to estimate population prevalence from Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores , 2009, Addiction.

[41]  P. Bendtsen,et al.  A Text Messaging-Based Smoking Cessation Program for Adult Smokers: Randomized Controlled Trial , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[42]  Helen Young,et al.  Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta-analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking populations , 2010 .

[43]  N. Horton,et al.  Randomized controlled trial of proactive web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention for university students. , 2009, Archives of internal medicine.