Department of Health Sciences, University of York, United Kingdom; Research Center on Alcohol and Drug Use, Department of Psychobiology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Psychiatry - Addiction Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2024 Jul 1;260:111337. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.111337. Epub 2024 May 18.
To evaluate the effects of booster and no booster versions of web-based alcohol Personalised Normative Feedback (PNF) and whether descriptive norms mediated and/or participant motivation moderated the effectiveness of the intervention in real world conditions (i.e. no financial incentives).
Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments. Brazilian college students reporting alcohol use in the last 12 months (N=931) were recruited from May/2020 to December/2022 and allocated to 1) No booster/single PNF(S-PNF); 2) Booster/multiple PNF(M-PNF); or 3) Assessment-only control. We applied Helmert coding [1: Any intervention (S-PNF or M-PNF) vs. Control; and 2: S-PNF vs. M-PNF].
typical number of drinks/week and maximum number of drinks/week; secondary outcomes: drinking frequency and number of consequences. Three-months assessment was the primary interval. Descriptive norms were tested as mediator. Interest, importance, and readiness to change were examined as moderators.
Compared to control, any intervention did not influence primary outcomes at 3-months or 6-months, but did at 1-month, when reduced typical drinking (IRR:0.77, 95%CI:0.66;0.90) and maximum number of drinks (IRR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58;0.82). There was an intervention effect on the consequences at 3-months. No differences were observed between S-PNF and M-PNF. No mediation effects were found at 3-months. At 6-months, there was an indirect effect on typical drinking through norms at 3-months (b=-0.82, 95%CI:-2.03;-0.12) and effects on maximum drinks through norms at 1-month (b=-0.54, 95%CI:-1.65;-0.02). No support for moderation was found.
Intervention reduced alcohol drinking at 1 month only and was not effective thereafter. Mechanisms of effect remain unclear.
评估基于网络的酒精个性化规范反馈(PNF)的增强版和非增强版的效果,以及描述性规范是否在现实条件下(即没有经济激励)中介和/或参与者动机调节干预的有效性。
具有 1、3 和 6 个月评估的实用随机对照试验。从 2020 年 5 月至 2022 年 12 月,从报告过去 12 个月内饮酒的巴西大学生中招募了 931 名参与者,并将他们分配到以下三组:1)无增强版/单一 PNF(S-PNF);2)增强版/多重 PNF(M-PNF);或 3)仅评估对照。我们应用了 Helmert 编码[1:任何干预(S-PNF 或 M-PNF)与对照;2:S-PNF 与 M-PNF]。
每周典型饮酒量和最大饮酒量;次要结果:饮酒频率和饮酒后果数量。三个月的评估是主要间隔。描述性规范作为中介进行测试。兴趣、重要性和改变的意愿被检验为调节因素。
与对照组相比,任何干预措施在 3 个月或 6 个月时都不会影响主要结果,但在 1 个月时会影响,此时典型饮酒量减少(IRR:0.77,95%CI:0.66;0.90)和最大饮酒量(IRR:0.69,95%CI:0.58;0.82)。在 3 个月时观察到干预对后果的影响。S-PNF 和 M-PNF 之间没有差异。在 3 个月时没有发现中介效应。在 6 个月时,通过 3 个月时的规范对典型饮酒有间接影响(b=-0.82,95%CI:-2.03;-0.12),通过 1 个月时的规范对最大饮酒量有影响(b=-0.54,95%CI:-1.65;-0.02)。没有发现调节作用的支持。
干预措施仅在 1 个月时减少饮酒量,此后则不再有效。作用机制仍不清楚。