Web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention for university students: a randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE Unhealthy alcohol use is a leading contributor to the global burden of disease, particularly among young people. Systematic reviews suggest efficacy of web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention and call for effectiveness trials in settings where it could be sustainably delivered. OBJECTIVE To evaluate a national web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention program. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multisite, double-blind, parallel-group, individually randomized trial was conducted at 7 New Zealand universities. In April and May of 2010, invitations containing hyperlinks to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) screening test were e-mailed to 14,991 students aged 17 to 24 years. INTERVENTIONS Participants who screened positive (AUDIT-C score ≥4) were randomized to undergo screening alone or to 10 minutes of assessment and feedback (including comparisons with medical guidelines and peer norms) on alcohol expenditure, peak blood alcohol concentration, alcohol dependence, and access to help and information. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A fully automated 5-month follow-up assessment was conducted that measured 6 primary outcomes: consumption per typical occasion, drinking frequency, volume of alcohol consumed, an academic problems score, and whether participants exceeded medical guidelines for acute harm (binge drinking) and chronic harm (heavy drinking). A Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of .0083 was used to account for the 6 comparisons and a sensitivity analysis was used to assess possible attrition bias. RESULTS Of 5135 students screened, 3422 scored 4 or greater and were randomized, and 83% were followed up. There was a significant effect on 1 of the 6 prespecified outcomes. Relative to control participants, those who received intervention consumed less alcohol per typical drinking occasion (median 4 drinks [interquartile range {IQR}, 2-8] vs 5 drinks [IQR 2-8]; rate ratio [RR], 0.93 [99.17% CI, 0.86-1.00]; P = .005) but not less often (RR, 0.95 [99.17% CI, 0.88-1.03]; P = .08) or less overall (RR, 0.95 [99.17% CI, 0.81-1.10]; P = .33). Academic problem scores were not lower (RR, 0.91 [99.17% CI, 0.76-1.08]; P = .14) and effects on the risks of binge drinking (odds ratio [OR], 0.84 [99.17% CI, 0.67-1.05]; P = .04) and heavy drinking (OR, 0.77 [99.17% CI, 0.56-1.05]; P = .03) were not significantly significant. In a sensitivity analysis accounting for attrition, the effect on alcohol per typical drinking occasion was no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A national web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention program produced no significant reductions in the frequency or overall volume of drinking or academic problems. There remains a possibility of a small reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed per typical drinking occasion. TRIAL REGISTRATION anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12610000279022.

[1]  Toben F Nelson,et al.  The state sets the rate: the relationship among state-specific college binge drinking, state binge drinking rates, and selected state alcohol control policies. , 2005, American journal of public health.

[2]  Kypros Kypri,et al.  Alcohol‐related problems experienced by university students in New Zealand , 2004, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health.

[3]  K. Bucholz,et al.  Do college students drink more than their non-college-attending peers? Evidence from a population-based longitudinal female twin study. , 2004, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[4]  S. Worchel,et al.  Psychology of intergroup relations , 1986 .

[5]  J. Rehm,et al.  The burden of death, disease, and disability due to alcohol in New Zealand. , 2005, The New Zealand medical journal.

[6]  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.

[7]  K. Kypri,et al.  Deception in Research Is Morally Problematic … and so too Is Not Using It Morally: Reply to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Use of Deception in Public Health Behavioral Intervention Trials: A Case Study of Three Online Alcohol Trials” , 2014, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

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

[9]  Karen C. Lee,et al.  Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce alcohol misuse. , 2014, American family physician.

[10]  Kypros Kypri,et al.  An internet-based survey method for college student drinking research. , 2004, Drug and alcohol dependence.

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

[12]  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.

[13]  G. Tober,et al.  Development of the Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (LDQ): a questionnaire to measure alcohol and opiate dependence in the context of a treatment evaluation package. , 1994, Addiction.

[14]  Angela P. Wetzel Internet, mail, and mixed‐mode surveys: The tailored design method , 2010 .

[15]  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.

[16]  Ian R White,et al.  Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  K. Kypri,et al.  Do university students drink more hazardously than their non-student peers? , 2005, Addiction.

[18]  Harold D. Holder,et al.  Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity: Research and Public Policy , 2010 .

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

[20]  D. Rubin,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. , 1989 .

[21]  Robert J Volk,et al.  AUDIT-C as a brief screen for alcohol misuse in primary care. , 2007, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[22]  John Kemm,et al.  Alcohol No Ordinary Commodity—Research and Public Policy, 2nd edn , 2011 .

[23]  J. Rehm,et al.  Measuring quantity, frequency, and volume of drinking. , 1998, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[24]  U. P. S. T. Force,et al.  Screening and Behavioral Counseling Interventions in Primary Care To Reduce Alcohol Misuse: Recommendation Statement , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[25]  Marcus Bendtsen,et al.  Alcohol assessment and feedback by email for university students: main findings from a randomised controlled trial , 2013, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[26]  D. Elbourne,et al.  In randomization we trust? There are overlooked problems in experimenting with people in behavioral intervention trials☆ , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[27]  J. Langley,et al.  The role of drinking locations in university student drinking: findings from a national web-based survey. , 2010, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[28]  C. Sibley,et al.  Multidimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement , 2014 .

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

[30]  V. Moyer Screening and Behavioral Counseling Interventions in Primary Care to Reduce Alcohol Misuse: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[31]  Armando Teixeira-Pinto,et al.  Statistical Approaches to Modeling Multiple Outcomes In Psychiatric Studies. , 2009, Psychiatric annals.

[32]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

[33]  John A Cunningham,et al.  Pragmatic randomized controlled trial of providing access to a brief personalized alcohol feedback intervention in university students , 2012, Addiction Science & Clinical Practice.

[34]  K. Kypri,et al.  Alcohol outlet density and university student drinking: a national study. , 2008, Addiction.

[35]  H. Wechsler,et al.  The marketing of alcohol to college students: the role of low prices and special promotions. , 2003, American journal of preventive medicine.

[36]  K. Kypri,et al.  Alcohol advertising in the New Zealand university student press. , 2008, Drug and alcohol review.

[37]  C. Sibley,et al.  The multi-dimensional model of Māori identity and cultural engagement: item response theory analysis of scale properties. , 2010, Cultural diversity & ethnic minority psychology.

[38]  Helen Christensen,et al.  Internet‐based interventions for young people with problematic substance use: a systematic review , 2010, The Medical journal of Australia.

[39]  O. Aasland,et al.  Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption--II. , 1993, Addiction.

[40]  J. Norrie,et al.  Pragmatic Trials. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[41]  D. Rubin,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data , 1988 .

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

[43]  D J Torgerson,et al.  Pragmatic trials: lab meets bedside , 2019, The British journal of dermatology.

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

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

[46]  Toben F Nelson,et al.  Taking up binge drinking in college: the influences of person, social group, and environment. , 2003, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.