Comparative Effectiveness of Brief Alcohol Interventions for College Students: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis
Comparative Effectiveness of Brief Alcohol Interventions for College Students: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11121-018-0960-z
复制
发表时间：
2019-07-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Grant, Sean P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hennessy, Emily Alden;Tanner-Smith, Emily E.;Grant, Sean P.
青春期晚期是饮酒量增加的时期，酒精在大学社会经历中起着主导作用。寻求防止学生危险饮酒的大学可以选择实施简短的酒精干预（BAIs）。然而，由于存在大量的人工BAIs，因此这些不同类型的BAIs对大学生的比较有效性仍然是一个重要的问题。本研究使用网络元分析（NMA）来比较七种人工BAIs在减少大学生酒精使用问题上的作用。我们系统地检索了多个文献来源，我们筛选了研究并提取了重复的数据。为了定量综合，我们采用随机效应频率NMA来确定不同BAI与对照组相比的有效性，并估计每个BAI的相对有效性排名。系统的文献检索结果包括52项研究：平均58%的参与者是男性，75%是酗酒者，20%是兄弟会/姐妹会附属的学生。一致性模型表明BASICS在减少学生问题酒精使用方面始终有效（ES范围：g=-0.23, 95%CI[-0.36, -0.16]至g=-0.36, 95%CI[-0.55, -0.18]），但alcohol edu （g=-0.13, 95%CI[-0.22, -0.04]）、e-CHUG （g=-0.35, 95%CI[-0.45, -0.05]）和THRIVE （g=-0.47, 95%CI[-0.60, -0.33]）对某些结果也有效。干预排名表明BASICS、THRIVE和AlcoholEDU在未来的试验中最有希望。一些BAIs似乎对大学生有效。BASICS是最有效的，但资源密集，可能更适合高风险学生；THRIVE和e-CHUG的资源密集程度较低，有望促进普遍预防工作。
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. This study uses network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare seven manualized BAIs for reducing problematic alcohol use among college students. 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. 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. 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.