Web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention for Māori and non-Māori: the New Zealand e-SBINZ trials

Abstract

BackgroundHazardous alcohol consumption is a leading modifiable cause of mortality and morbidity among young people. Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is a key strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm in the community, and web-based approaches (e-SBI) have advantages over practitioner-delivered approaches, being cheaper, more acceptable, administrable remotely and infinitely scalable. An efficacy trial in a university population showed a 10-minute intervention could reduce drinking by 11% for 6 months or more among 17-24 year-old undergraduate hazardous drinkers. The e-SBINZ study is designed to examine the effectiveness of e-SBI across a range of universities and among Māori and non-Māori students in New Zealand.Methods/DesignThe e-SBINZ study comprises two parallel, double blind, multi-site, individually randomised controlled trials. This paper outlines the background and design of the trial, which is recruiting 17-24 year-old students from seven of New Zealand's eight universities. Māori and non-Māori students are being sampled separately and are invited by e-mail to complete a web questionnaire including the AUDIT-C. Those who score >4 will be randomly allocated to no further contact until follow-up (control) or to assessment and personalised feedback (intervention) via computer. Follow-up assessment will occur 5 months later in second semester. Recruitment, consent, randomisation, intervention and follow-up are all online. Primary outcomes are (i) total alcohol consumption, (ii) frequency of drinking, (iii) amount consumed per typical drinking occasion, (iv) the proportions exceeding medical guidelines for acute and chronic harm, and (v) scores on an academic problems scale.DiscussionThe trial will provide information on the effectiveness of e-SBI in reducing hazardous alcohol consumption across diverse university student populations with separate effect estimates for Māori and non-Māori students.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12610000279022

Alcohol email assessment and feedback study dismantling effectiveness for university students (AMADEUS-1): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

“…Similar decisions have been made by Kypri and colleagues for similar reasons, the small effects under study being judged likely to be adversely impacted by research participation artifacts which will introduce bias [8]. This methodological imperative runs counter to the ethical imperative of informed consent.…”

Web-based screening and brief intervention for poly-drug use among teenagers: study protocol of a multicentre two-arm randomized controlled trial

“…This approach matches real conditions and directly tests the external validity of our website should its effectiveness be proven. Note that this procedure deviates from other studies which typically test offline before going online [28,55]. While failure to retain a sufficient proportion of participants for follow-up assessment remains a concern for the evaluation we consider it vital to develop a web-site that will be accepted by our target group.…”

“…In contrast to other studies that test web-based interventions offline before putting them on the internet [28,55] we will launch Czech, German, Flamish, and Swedish versions of our website and motivate potential participants to visit by running online (using social networks and banner advertisements) and offline marketing campaigns. Similar to others [28] we will rely on a convenience sample from the general population.…”

Electronic communication based interventions for hazardous young drinkers: A systematic review

“…A further 16 studies did not meet the age range criteria (Bewick et al, 2013;Enggasser et al, 2015;Sinadinovic et al, 2014., Bendtsen & Bendtsen, 2014., Bendtsen et al, 2015Bewick et al, 2010;Doumas et al, 2014;Ekman et al, 2011;Kypri et al, 2010;Kypri et al, 2013;Lotfipour et al, 2013;McCambridge et al, 2013;Moreira, Oskrochi & Foxcroft, 2012;Schulz, Kremers & de Vries, 2012;Schulz et al, 2013;Tensil, Jonas & Strüber, 2013). Four papers were simply commentaries on other studies, or reviews (Cronce et al, 2014;Naimi & Cole, 2014;Rodriguez et al, 2015), whilst one study discussed the method of designing a behaviour change intervention (Voogt et al, 2014c), resulting in exclusion from this review.…”