OBJECTIVE: When college students violate campus alcohol policies, they typically receive disciplinary sanctions that include alcohol education or counseling. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of these "mandated interventions" to prevent future alcohol misuse. METHOD: Studies were included if they evaluated an individual- or group-level intervention, sampled students mandated to an alcohol program, used a pretest-posttest design, and assessed alcohol use as an outcome. Thirty-one studies with 68 separate interventions (N = 8,621 participants; 35% women; 85% White) were coded by independent raters with respect to sample, design, methodological features, and intervention content; the raters also calculated weighted mean effect sizes, using random-effects models. A priori predictors were examined to explain variability in effect sizes. RESULTS: In the 5 studies that used assessment-only control groups, mandated students reported significantly less drinking relative to controls (between-groups contrasts), d+ ranged from 0.13-0.20 for quantity and intoxication outcomes. In the 31 studies that provided within-group contrasts, significant effects were observed for all outcomes in the short-term (i.e., ≤ 3 months postintervention), with d+ ranging from 0.14-0.27; however, fewer significant effects appeared at longer follow-ups. Four commercially available intervention protocols (i.e., BASICS, e-CHUG, Alcohol 101, and Alcohol Skills Training Program) were associated with risk reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Providing mandated interventions to students who violate campus alcohol policies is an effective short-term risk reduction strategy. Continued research is needed to maintain initial gains, identify the most useful intervention components, and determine the cost-effectiveness of delivery modes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: When college students violate campus alcohol policies, they typically receive disciplinary sanctions that include alcohol education or counseling. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of these "mandated interventions" to prevent future alcohol misuse. METHOD: Studies were included if they evaluated an individual- or group-level intervention, sampled students mandated to an alcohol program, used a pretest-posttest design, and assessed alcohol use as an outcome. Thirty-one studies with 68 separate interventions (N = 8,621 participants; 35% women; 85% White) were coded by independent raters with respect to sample, design, methodological features, and intervention content; the raters also calculated weighted mean effect sizes, using random-effects models. A priori predictors were examined to explain variability in effect sizes. RESULTS: In the 5 studies that used assessment-only control groups, mandated students reported significantly less drinking relative to controls (between-groups contrasts), d+ ranged from 0.13-0.20 for quantity and intoxication outcomes. In the 31 studies that provided within-group contrasts, significant effects were observed for all outcomes in the short-term (i.e., ≤ 3 months postintervention), with d+ ranging from 0.14-0.27; however, fewer significant effects appeared at longer follow-ups. Four commercially available intervention protocols (i.e., BASICS, e-CHUG, Alcohol 101, and Alcohol Skills Training Program) were associated with risk reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Providing mandated interventions to students who violate campus alcohol policies is an effective short-term risk reduction strategy. Continued research is needed to maintain initial gains, identify the most useful intervention components, and determine the cost-effectiveness of delivery modes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Nancy P Barnett; Brian Borsari; John T P Hustad; Tracy O'Leary Tevyaw; Suzanne M Colby; Christopher W Kahler; Peter M Monti Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Amelia M Arria; Irene M Geisner; M Dolores Cimini; Jason R Kilmer; Kimberly M Caldeira; Angelica L Barrall; Kathryn B Vincent; Nicole Fossos-Wong; Jih-Cheng Yeh; Isaac Rhew; Christine M Lee; Geetha A Subramaniam; David Liu; Mary E Larimer Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Brian Borsari; Timothy R Apodaca; Kristina M Jackson; Anne Fernandez; Nadine R Mastroleo; Molly Magill; Nancy P Barnett; Kate B Carey Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2017-11-27
Authors: Kate B Carey; Jennifer L Walsh; Jennifer E Merrill; Sarah A Lust; Allecia E Reid; Lori A J Scott-Sheldon; Seth C Kalichman; Michael P Carey Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2018-09
Authors: Michael H Bernstein; Grayson L Baird; Miryam Yusufov; Nadine R Mastroleo; Kate B Carey; Daniel D Graney; Mark D Wood Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Kate B Carey; Sara G Balestrieri; Mary Beth Miller; Jennifer E Merrill; Angelo M DiBello; Madeline B Benz Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.582