Evaluating the Efficacy of Alcohol Screening & Brief Intervention at a University

描述（由申请人提供）：当前研究的广泛、长期目标是通过实施和评估有效、低成本的个体筛查和简短干预（SBI）策略，减少在大学医疗和心理健康环境中寻求医疗保健的大学生高危人群中的酒精使用和相关的负面健康、社会和法律的后果。SBI策略，特别是大学生简短酒精筛查和干预（BASICS）模型（Dimeff，Baer，Kivlahan，& Marlatt，1999），已经得到研究的支持，成为减少酒精滥用的有效和具有成本效益的手段（Baer，Kivlahan，Blume，McKnight，& Marlatt，2001; Borsari & Carey，2000; Larimer等人，2001; Marlatt等人，1998）和酒精相关的后果（Baer等人，2001; Marlatt等人，1998年，大学生。此外，我们开始更好地检查和理解可以通过简短干预导致行为改变的机制（Carey，Carey，Maisto和Henson，2006; Carey，Henson，Carey和Maisto，2007）。基于动机的SBI计划，包括BASICS和其他干预形式的研究的一个重要限制是，他们通常是在自然环境之外进行的，大学生通常接受健康相关的服务，如校园健康中心和咨询中心。几项研究已经证实了SBI计划在初级保健环境中的有效性（例如，Fleming，Brown，& Brown，2004; Reiff-Hekking，Ockene，Hurley，& Reed，2005）和急诊室（例如，Longabaugh等人，2001; Monti等人，1999年），但这项工作并没有完全抽样大学生。目前的研究旨在通过检查SBI在各种干预形式中提供的有效性和成本效益来解决文献中的这些差距，以减少在大学基础初级医疗和精神卫生保健机构寻求服务的本科生和研究生目标人群中的酒精使用和相关的负面后果。具体而言，NIAAA第一层筛选和简短干预大学生（BASICS）模型（Dimeff等人，1999），一种商业上可获得的用于高风险酒精使用的基于网络的教育干预（e-Chug），仅管理网络递送的个性化饮酒反馈（PDF）（Dimeff等人，1999年）和仅评估（等待名单控制条件），将审查其短期和长期疗效。其次，拟议的研究旨在研究中介和调解人的干预效果的作用，无论是在治疗条件下和跨。第三，目前的研究将探讨模式和参与者的学术表现和保留在大学环境中的变化，在这个项目的过程中。本研究的具体目标将在一项纵向随机试验研究的背景下完成，该研究采用组间设计，以评估BASICS，e-Chug和个性化饮酒反馈仅在减少酒精使用和相关负面后果方面的短期和长期疗效。将特别强调对治疗效果的介导者和调节者的评价，以更好地阐明这些因素对短期和长期干预结果的作用。此外，拟议的项目将评估参与者的学习成绩和保留在大学环境中的模式和变化，随着时间的推移，为研究参与者。 公共卫生相关性：本研究的目的是通过实施和评估有效的、低成本的个体筛查和简短干预（SBI）策略，减少在大学医疗和心理健康环境中寻求医疗保健的大学生高危人群中的酒精使用和相关的负面健康、社会和法律的后果。SBI策略，特别是大学生简短酒精筛查和干预（BASICS）模型（Dimeff，Baer，Kivlahan，& Marlatt，1999），已经得到研究的支持，成为减少酒精滥用的有效和具有成本效益的手段（Baer，Kivlahan，Blume，McKnight，& Marlatt，2001; Borsari & Carey，2000; Larimer等人，2001; Marlatt等人，1998）和酒精相关的后果（Baer等人，2001; Marlatt等人，1998年，大学生。我们将探讨这些干预措施如何工作时，提供不同的格式，如面对面和通过网络。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The broad, long-term objective of the current research is to reduce alcohol use and related negative health, social, and legal consequences in a high-risk population of college students seeking health care at a university- based medical and mental health setting, through implementation and evaluation of effective, low-cost individual Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) strategies. SBI strategies, particularly the Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) model (Dimeff, Baer, Kivlahan, & Marlatt, 1999), have been supported by research to be an efficient and cost-effective means of reducing alcohol abuse (Baer, Kivlahan, Blume, McKnight, & Marlatt, 2001; Borsari & Carey, 2000; Larimer et al. 2001; Marlatt et al., 1998) and alcohol-related consequences (Baer et al., 2001; Marlatt et al., 1998) among college students. Further, we are beginning to better examine and understand the mechanisms that can result in behavior change using brief interventions (Carey, Carey, Maisto, and Henson, 2006; Carey, Henson, Carey, and Maisto, 2007). A significant limitation of the research on motivational-based SBI programs, including BASICS and other intervention formats, is that they have generally been conducted outside of naturalistic settings in which college students typically receive health-related services, such as campus-based health centers and counseling centers. Several studies have confirmed the effectiveness of SBI programs in both primary care settings (e.g., Fleming, Brown, & Brown, 2004; Reiff-Hekking, Ockene, Hurley, & Reed, 2005) and emergency rooms (e.g., Longabaugh et al., 2001; Monti et al., 1999), but this work has not exclusively sampled college students. The current research is designed to address these gaps in the literature by examining the efficacy and cost- effectiveness of the delivery of SBI in a variety of intervention formats in reducing alcohol use and related negative consequences in a target population of undergraduate and graduate students seeking services at university-based primary medical and mental health care settings. Specifically, the NIAAA Tier I Screening and Brief Intervention for College Students (BASICS) model (Dimeff at al., 1999), a commercially-available Web- based educational intervention for high-risk alcohol use (e-Chug), the administration of Web-delivered personalized drinking feedback (PDF)-only (Dimeff, et al., 1999), and an assessment-only (wait-list control condition), will be examined in regard to their short-term and longer-term efficacy. Second, the proposed research is designed to examine the role of mediators and moderators of intervention efficacy, both within and across treatment conditions. Third, this current research will examine patterns of and changes in participant academic performance and retention within the university environment during the course of this project. The specific aims of this research will be accomplished in the context of a longitudinal randomized trial study using a between-group design to assess the short-term and longer-term efficacy of BASICS, e-Chug, and personalized drinking feedback-only in reducing alcohol use and associated negative consequences. Specific emphasis will be placed on the evaluation of mediators and moderators on treatment efficacy, in an effort to better clarify the roles of these factors on short-term and long-term intervention outcomes. Additionally, the proposed project will evaluate patterns of and changes in participant academic performance and retention within the university environment across time for study participants. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: The purpose of the current research study is to reduce alcohol use and related negative health, social, and legal consequences in a high-risk population of college students seeking health care at a university-based medical and mental health setting, through implementation and evaluation of effective, low-cost individual Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) strategies. SBI strategies, particularly the Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) model (Dimeff, Baer, Kivlahan, & Marlatt, 1999), have been supported by research to be an efficient and cost-effective means of reducing alcohol abuse (Baer, Kivlahan, Blume, McKnight, & Marlatt, 2001; Borsari & Carey, 2000; Larimer et al. 2001; Marlatt et al., 1998) and alcohol- related consequences (Baer et al., 2001; Marlatt et al., 1998) among college students. We will explore how these interventions work when delivered in different formats, such as face-to-face and via the Web.