OBJECTIVES: To show the effectiveness of a brief group alcohol intervention. Aims of the intervention were to reduce the frequency of heavy drinking occasions, maximum number of drinks on an occasion and overall weekly consumption. METHODS:A cluster quasi-randomized control trial (intervention n = 338; control n = 330) among 16- to 18-year-old secondary school students in the Swiss Canton of Zürich. Groups homogeneous for heavy drinking occasions (5+/4+ drinks for men/women) consisted of those having medium risk (3-4) or high risk (5+) occasions in the past 30 days. Groups of 8-10 individuals received two 45-min sessions based on motivational interviewing techniques. RESULTS: Borderline significant beneficial effects (p < 0.10) on heavy drinking occasions and alcohol volume were found 6 months later for the medium-risk group only, but not for the high-risk group. None of the effects remained significant after Bonferroni corrections. CONCLUSIONS: Group intervention was ineffective for all at-risk users. The heaviest drinkers may need more intensive treatment. Alternative explanations were iatrogenic effects among the heaviest drinkers, assessment reactivity, or reduction of social desirability bias at follow-up through peer feedback.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To show the effectiveness of a brief group alcohol intervention. Aims of the intervention were to reduce the frequency of heavy drinking occasions, maximum number of drinks on an occasion and overall weekly consumption. METHODS: A cluster quasi-randomized control trial (intervention n = 338; control n = 330) among 16- to 18-year-old secondary school students in the Swiss Canton of Zürich. Groups homogeneous for heavy drinking occasions (5+/4+ drinks for men/women) consisted of those having medium risk (3-4) or high risk (5+) occasions in the past 30 days. Groups of 8-10 individuals received two 45-min sessions based on motivational interviewing techniques. RESULTS: Borderline significant beneficial effects (p < 0.10) on heavy drinking occasions and alcohol volume were found 6 months later for the medium-risk group only, but not for the high-risk group. None of the effects remained significant after Bonferroni corrections. CONCLUSIONS: Group intervention was ineffective for all at-risk users. The heaviest drinkers may need more intensive treatment. Alternative explanations were iatrogenic effects among the heaviest drinkers, assessment reactivity, or reduction of social desirability bias at follow-up through peer feedback.
Authors: Joseph W LaBrie; Karen K Huchting; Andrew Lac; Summer Tawalbeh; Alysha D Thompson; Mary E Larimer Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Suppl Date: 2009-07
Authors: James G Murphy; Trisha A Benson; Rudy E Vuchinich; Mary M Deskins; David Eakin; Amanda M Flood; Meghan E McDevitt-Murphy; Ohiana Torrealday Journal: J Stud Alcohol Date: 2004-03
Authors: Mary Clair-Michaud; Rosemarie A Martin; Linda A R Stein; Shayna Bassett; Rebecca Lebeau; Charles Golembeske Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2015-09-25
Authors: Severin Haug; Michael P Schaub; Vigeli Venzin; Christian Meyer; Ulrich John; Gerhard Gmel Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Severin Haug; Michael P Schaub; Corina Salis Gross; Ulrich John; Christian Meyer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 3.295