4.3 Article

Personalized mailed feedback for college drinking prevention: A randomized clinical trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 75, Issue 2, Pages 285-293

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.2.285

Keywords

college; alcohol; skills; brief intervention; motivation

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM [R37AA012547, T32AA007455, R01AA012547] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIAAA NIH HHS [T32AA007455, R01AA12547, T32 AA007455, R01 AA012547, R01 AA012547-05S1, R01 AA012547-05] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of a mailed feedback and tips intervention as a universal prevention strategy for college drinking. Participants (N = 1,488) were randomly assigned to feedback or assessment-only control conditions. Results indicated that the mailed feedback intervention had a preventive effect on drinking rates overall, with participants in the feedback condition consuming less alcohol at follow-up in comparison with controls. In addition, abstainers in the feedback condition were twice as likely to remain abstinent from alcohol at follow-up in comparison with control participants (odds ratio = 2.02), and feedback participants were significantly more likely to refrain from heavy episodic drinking (odds ratio = 1.43). Neither gender nor severity of baseline drinking moderated the efficacy of the intervention in these analyses, but more conservative analyses utilizing last-observation carryforward suggested women and abstainers benefited more from this prevention approach. Protective behaviors mediated intervention efficacy, with participants who received the intervention being more likely to use strategies such as setting limits and alternating alcohol with nonalcoholic beverages. Implications of these findings for universal prevention of college drinking are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available