Department of Human and Organizational Development, Vanderbilt University, PMB 90, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA.
Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Policy, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269-1248, USA.
Prev Sci. 2019 Jul;20(5):715-740. doi: 10.1007/s11121-018-0960-z.
Late adolescence is a time of increased drinking, and alcohol plays a predominant role in college social experiences. Colleges seeking to prevent students' hazardous drinking may elect to implement brief alcohol interventions (BAIs). However, numerous manualized BAIs exist, so an important question remains regarding the comparative effectiveness of these different types of BAIs for college students. This study uses network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare seven manualized BAIs for reducing problematic alcohol use among college students. We systematically searched multiple sources for literature, and we screened studies and extracted data in duplicate. For the quantitative synthesis, we employed a random-effects frequentist NMA to determine the effectiveness of different BAIs compared to controls and estimated the relative effectiveness ranking of each BAI. A systematic literature search resulted in 52 included studies: On average, 58% of participants were male, 75% were binge drinkers, and 20% were fraternity/sorority-affiliated students. Consistency models demonstrated that BASICS was consistently effective in reducing students' problematic alcohol use (ES range: g = - 0.23, 95%CI [- 0.36, - 0.16] to g = - 0.36, 95% CI [- 0.55, - 0.18]), but AlcoholEDU (g = - 0.13, 95%CI [- 0.22, - 0.04]), e-CHUG (g = - 0.35, 95%CI [- 0.45, - 0.05]), and THRIVE (g = - 0.47, 95%CI [- 0.60, - 0.33]) were also effective for some outcomes. Intervention rankings indicated that BASICS, THRIVE, and AlcoholEDU hold the most promise for future trials. Several BAIs appear effective for college students. BASICS was the most effective but is resource intensive and may be better suited for higher risk students; THRIVE and e-CHUG are less resource intensive and show promise for universal prevention efforts.
青春期后期是饮酒量增加的时期,酒精在大学生社交体验中起着重要作用。希望预防学生危险饮酒的学院可能会选择实施简短的酒精干预措施(BAIs)。然而,有许多现成的 BAI,因此对于这些不同类型的 BAI 对大学生的相对有效性仍然存在一个重要问题。本研究使用网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较七种用于减少大学生中问题性饮酒的规范化 BAI。我们系统地搜索了多个来源的文献,并进行了重复的筛选研究和提取数据。对于定量综合,我们采用随机效应频率主义 NMA 来确定与对照组相比不同 BAI 的有效性,并估计每种 BAI 的相对有效性排名。系统的文献搜索导致 52 项纳入研究:平均而言,58%的参与者为男性,75%为狂欢饮酒者,20%为联谊会/兄弟会成员。一致性模型表明,BASICS 一直能够有效地减少学生的问题性饮酒(ES 范围:g=-0.23,95%CI[-0.36,-0.16]至 g=-0.36,95%CI[-0.55,-0.18]),但 AlcoholEDU(g=-0.13,95%CI[-0.22,-0.04])、e-CHUG(g=-0.35,95%CI[-0.45,-0.05])和 THRIVE(g=-0.47,95%CI[-0.60,-0.33])对某些结果也有效。干预排名表明,BASICS、THRIVE 和 AlcoholEDU 最有希望进行未来试验。几种 BAI 似乎对大学生有效。BASICS 最有效,但资源密集,可能更适合高风险学生;THRIVE 和 e-CHUG 资源密集度较低,有望用于普遍预防工作。