Face-to-face versus computer-delivered alcohol interventions for college drinkers: A meta-analytic review, 1998 to 2010
Face-to-face versus computer-delivered alcohol interventions for college drinkers: A meta-analytic review, 1998 to 2010
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cpr.2012.08.001
复制
发表时间：
2012-12-01
影响因子：
12.8
通讯作者：
Carey, Michael P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carey, Kate B.;Scott-Sheldon, Lori A. J.;Carey, Michael P.
酒精滥用在大学校园中很常见，因此有必要制定预防计划，帮助大学饮酒者减少饮酒，将有害后果降到最低。计算机交付干预（cdi）由于其低成本和易于传播而被广泛使用，但cdi是否有效以及它们是否产生与面对面干预（FTFTs）相当的效益尚不清楚。因此，我们确定了cdi和ftfi的对照试验，并使用荟萃分析(a)来确定这两种方法的相对疗效，(b)来测试干预疗效的预测因子。我们纳入了ftfi （N=5237； 56%女性；87%白人）和cdi （N= 32243； 51%女性；81%白人）的研究。独立评分者对参与者特征、设计和方法特征、干预内容进行编码，并使用固定和随机效应模型计算加权平均效应大小。分析表明，与对照组相比，FTFI参与者饮酒较少，饮酒频率较低，在短期随访中报告的问题较少（d(+)s=0.15-0.19）；在中期（d(+)=0.23）和长期（d(+)=0.14）随访中，他们继续摄入较低的量。与对照组相比，CDI参与者在短期随访中报告的数量、频率和峰值中毒（d(+)s=0.13-0.29）较低，但这些影响并未维持。FTFI和cdi之间的直接比较很少，但这些试验在数量和问题测量上都倾向于FTFI （d(+)s=0.12-0.20）。调节分析确定了影响干预效果的参与者和干预特征。总的来说，我们得出结论，金融设施提供了最有效和持久的影响。(C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd.版权所有。
Alcohol misuse occurs commonly on college campuses, necessitating prevention programs to help college drinkers reduce consumption and minimize harmful consequences. Computer-delivered interventions (CDIs) have been widely used due to their low cost and ease of dissemination but whether CDIs are efficacious and whether they produce benefits equivalent to face-to-face interventions (FTFTs) remain unclear. Therefore, we identified controlled trials of both CDIs and FTFIs and used meta-analysis (a) to determine the relative efficacy of these two approaches and (b) to test predictors of intervention efficacy. We included studies examining FTFIs (N=5237; 56% female; 87% White) and CDIs (N=32,243; 51% female; 81% White). Independent raters coded participant characteristics, design and methodological features, intervention content, and calculated weighted mean effect sizes using fixed and random-effects models. Analyses indicated that, compared to controls, FTFI participants drank less, drank less frequently, and reported fewer problems at short-term follow-up (d(+)s=0.15-0.19); they continued to consume lower quantities at intermediate (d(+)=0.23) and long-term (d(+)=0.14) follow-ups. Compared to controls, CDI participants reported lower quantities, frequency, and peak intoxication at short-term follow-up (d(+)s=0.13-0.29), but these effects were not maintained. Direct comparisons between FTFI and CDIs were infrequent, but these trials favored the FTFIs on both quantity and problem measures (d(+)s=0.12-0.20). Moderator analyses identified participant and intervention characteristics that influence intervention efficacy. Overall, we conclude that FTFIs provide the most effective and enduring effects. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.