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 (FTFIs) 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 = 5,237; 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 problems 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.

Aims-This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and moderators of computer-delivered interventions (CDIs) to reduce alcohol use among college students.Methods-We included 35 manuscripts with 43 separate interventions, and calculated both between-group and within-group effect sizes for alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. Effects sizes were calculated for short-term (≤ 5 weeks) and longer-term (≥ 6 weeks) intervals. All studies were coded for study descriptors, participant characteristics, and intervention components.Results-The effects of CDIs depended on the nature of the comparison condition: CDIs reduced quantity and frequency measures relative to assessment-only controls, but rarely differed from comparison conditions that included alcohol content. Small-to-medium within-group effect sizes can be expected for CDIs at short-and longer-term follow-ups; these changes are less than or equivalent to the within-group effect sizes observed for more intensive interventions.Conclusions-CDIs reduce the quantity and frequency of drinking among college students. CDIs are generally equivalent to alternative alcohol-related comparison interventions.

Objective Alcohol use established during the first-year of college can result in adverse consequences during the college years and beyond. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of interventions to prevent alcohol misuse by first-year college students. Methods Prevention studies were included if the study reported an individual- or group-level intervention using a randomized controlled trial, targeted first-year college students, and assessed alcohol use. Forty-one studies with 62 separate interventions (N = 24,294; 57% women; 77% White) were included. Independent raters coded sample, design, methodological features, and intervention content. Weighted mean effect sizes, using fixed- and random-effects models, were calculated. Potential moderators, determined a priori, were examined to explain variability in effect sizes. Results Relative to controls, students receiving an intervention reported lower quantity and frequency of drinking and fewer problems (d+s = 0.07 – 0.14). These results were more pronounced when the interventions were compared to an assessment-only control group (d+s = 0.11 – 0.19). Intervention content (e.g., personalized feedback) moderated the efficacy of the intervention. Conclusions Behavioral interventions for first-year college students reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. Interventions that include personalized feedback, moderation strategies, expectancy challenge, identification of risky situations, and goal setting optimize efficacy. Strategies to prevent alcohol misuse among first-year students are recommended.

E-Interventions, or electronically based interventions, have become increasingly popular in recent years. College alcohol use has been one area in which such interventions have been implemented and evaluated. The purpose of this paper is to review the seventeen randomized controlled trials that have been published as of August 2007. These studies compared the effectiveness of e-interventions with other commonly used techniques, reading materials, and assessment-only control conditions. Overall, findings provide some support for such programs, especially in comparison with assessmentonly control conditions. In addition, possible moderators (e.g. baseline drinking patterns) and mediators (e.g. corrected drinking norms) have emerged. Limitations and areas for future research are discussed.

Objective When college students violate campus alcohol policies, they typically receive disciplinary sanctions that include alcohol education or counseling. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of these “mandated interventions” to prevent future alcohol misuse. Methods Studies were included if they evaluated an individual- or group-level intervention, sampled students mandated to an alcohol program, used a pretest-posttest design, and assessed alcohol use as an outcome. Thirty-one studies with 68 separate interventions (N = 8,621 participants; 35% women; 85% White) were coded by independent raters with respect to sample, design, methodological features, and intervention content; the raters also calculated weighted mean effect sizes, using random-effects models. A priori predictors were examined to explain variability in effect sizes. Results In the five studies that used assessment-only control groups, mandated students reported significantly less drinking relative to controls (between-group contrasts), d+ ranged from 0.13-0.20 for quantity and intoxication outcomes. In the 31 studies that provided within-group contrasts, significant effects were observed for all outcomes in the short-term (i.e., ≤ 3 months post-intervention), with d+ ranging from 0.14-0.27; however, fewer significant effects appeared at longer follow-ups. Four commercially-available intervention protocols (i.e., BASICS, e-CHUG, Alcohol 101, and Alcohol Skills Training Program) were associated with risk reduction. Conclusions Providing mandated interventions to students who violate campus alcohol policies is an effective short-term risk reduction strategy. Continued research is needed to maintain initial gains, identify the most useful intervention components, and determine the cost-effectiveness of delivery modes.