Browsing by Author "Tanner-Smith, Emily E."

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparative Effectiveness of Brief Alcohol Interventions for College Students: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis
    (Springer, 2019-01-02) Hennessy, Emily Alden; Tanner-Smith, Emily E.; Mavridis, Dimitris; Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health
    Background 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. Aim This study uses network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare seven manualized BAIs for reducing problematic alcohol use among college students. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.