Eun-Young Mun1, Xiaoyin Li1, Shelby Lineberry2, Zhengqi Tan2, David Huh3, Scott T Walters1, Zhengyang Zhou2, Mary E Larimer4. 1. Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA. 3. School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: College students who drink are at an increased risk of driving after drinking and alcohol-involved traffic accidents and deaths. Furthermore, the persistence of driving after drinking over time underscores a need for effective interventions to prevent future drunk driving in adulthood. The present study examined whether brief alcohol interventions (BAIs) for college students reduce driving after drinking. METHODS: A two-step meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) was conducted using a combined sample of 6801 college students from 15 randomized controlled trials (38% male, 72% White and 58% first-year students). BAIs included individually delivered Motivational Interviewing with Personalized Feedback (MI + PF), Group Motivational Interviewing (GMI), and stand-alone Personalized Feedback (PF) interventions. Two outcome variables, driving after two+/three+ drinks and driving after four+/five+ drinks, were checked, harmonized and analyzed separately for each study and then combined for meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: BAIs lowered the risk of driving after four+/five+ drinks (19% difference in the odds of driving after drinking favoring BAIs vs. control), but not the risk of driving after two+/three+ drinks (9% difference). Subsequent subgroup analysis indicated that the MI + PF intervention was comparatively better than PF or GMI. CONCLUSIONS: BAIs provide a harm reduction approach to college drinking. Hence, it is encouraging that BAIs reduce the risk of driving after heavy drinking among college students. However, there may be opportunities to enhance the intervention content and timing to be more relevant for driving after drinking and improve the outcome assessment and reporting to demonstrate its effect.
AIMS: College students who drink are at an increased risk of driving after drinking and alcohol-involved traffic accidents and deaths. Furthermore, the persistence of driving after drinking over time underscores a need for effective interventions to prevent future drunk driving in adulthood. The present study examined whether brief alcohol interventions (BAIs) for college students reduce driving after drinking. METHODS: A two-step meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) was conducted using a combined sample of 6801 college students from 15 randomized controlled trials (38% male, 72% White and 58% first-year students). BAIs included individually delivered Motivational Interviewing with Personalized Feedback (MI + PF), Group Motivational Interviewing (GMI), and stand-alone Personalized Feedback (PF) interventions. Two outcome variables, driving after two+/three+ drinks and driving after four+/five+ drinks, were checked, harmonized and analyzed separately for each study and then combined for meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: BAIs lowered the risk of driving after four+/five+ drinks (19% difference in the odds of driving after drinking favoring BAIs vs. control), but not the risk of driving after two+/three+ drinks (9% difference). Subsequent subgroup analysis indicated that the MI + PF intervention was comparatively better than PF or GMI. CONCLUSIONS: BAIs provide a harm reduction approach to college drinking. Hence, it is encouraging that BAIs reduce the risk of driving after heavy drinking among college students. However, there may be opportunities to enhance the intervention content and timing to be more relevant for driving after drinking and improve the outcome assessment and reporting to demonstrate its effect.
Authors: Megan E Patrick; Yvonne M Terry-McElrath; Stephanie T Lanza; Justin Jager; John E Schulenberg; Patrick M O'Malley Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: David R Foxcroft; Lindsey Coombes; Sarah Wood; Debby Allen; Nerissa M L Almeida Santimano; Maria Teresa Moreira Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-07-18
Authors: David Huh; Xiaoyin Li; Zhengyang Zhou; Scott T Walters; Scott A Baldwin; Zhengqi Tan; Mary E Larimer; Eun-Young Mun Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2021-11-12