Brief Alcohol Interventions by Counselor vs Computer

描述（由申请人提供）：本研究的长期目标是减少大学生的高危饮酒和与酒精相关的负面后果。拟议的研究将评估三种类型的简短动机干预（bmi）的结果、预测因素和调节因素以及成本效益：一种经验支持的咨询师管理干预和两种计算机化干预（Alcohol 101 Plus和Alcohol edu）。尽管这些计算机管理的bmi指数被广泛使用和销售，但我们缺乏对这两种预防方案的行为结果的对照研究。参与者将是700名有饮酒风险的学生，他们因为违反了宿舍的饮酒政策而被批准接受酒精干预。这些被推荐的学生将被随机分配到三个bmi指数中的一个或延迟干预控制组，并在基线和干预后1、6和12个月进行评估。首先，我们将检验以下假设：(a)在短期内，相对于延迟干预控制条件下的学生，接受任何干预的学生饮酒者将减少高风险饮酒，并经历更少的饮酒负面后果；(b)长期来看，接受咨询师管理的BMI的学生比接受电脑管理的BMI的学生更能减少高风险饮酒和负面后果。其次，我们将评估个人（例如，性别，基线饮酒），动机（例如，改变的准备）和社会影响（例如，感知规范，社会网络组成）变量是否会预测和/或调节学生对bmi的反应。第三，我们将在成本效益分析中结合所有三种干预措施的功效和成本信息。这项研究的结果将为大学和学院的管理人员提供指导，他们目前必须在没有计算机管理的bmi的有效性数据的情况下做出政策决定，或者关于计算机管理的bmi与训练有素的咨询师管理的相对成本效益的信息。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The long-term objective of this study is to reduce high-risk drinking and negative alcohol-related consequences in college students. The proposed research will evaluate outcomes, predictors and moderators of outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of three types of brief motivational interventions (BMIs): an empirically supported counselor-administered intervention and two computerized interventions (Alcohol 101 Plus and AlcoholEdu). Although these computer-administered BMIs are widely used and marketed, we lack controlled studies on behavioral outcomes for either of these prevention programs. Participants will be 700 at-risk student drinkers who have been sanctioned to receive an alcohol intervention because they violated residence hall alcohol policy. These referred students will be randomized to one of the three BMIs or to a delayed intervention control, and assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months post-intervention. First, we will test hypotheses that (a) in the short-term, student drinkers who receive any of the interventions will reduce high-risk drinking and experience fewer negative consequences of drinking relative to students in the delayed intervention control condition; and (b) in the long-term, students who receive counselor-administered BMIs will reduce high-risk drinking and negative consequences to a greater extent than will students who receive either computer-administered BMI. Second, we will assess whether personal (e.g., gender, baseline drinking), motivational (e.g., readiness to change), and social influence (e.g., perceived norms, social network composition) variables will predict and/or moderate student response to the BMIs. Third, we will combine information on both the efficacy and the costs of all three interventions in a cost-effectiveness analysis. The results of the this study will provide guidance to university and college administrators who currently must make policy decisions without efficacy data regarding computer-administered BMIs, or information on the relative cost-effectiveness of BMIs administered by computer vs. by trained counselors.