U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Face-to-face versus computer-delivered alcohol interventions for college drinkers: A meta-analytic review, 1998 to 2010

NCJ Number
306443
Journal
Clinical Psychology Review Volume: 32 Issue: 8 Dated: 2012 Pages: 690-703
Date Published
2012
Length
14 pages
Annotation

The authors of this meta-analysis evaluate the efficacy of face-to-face vs. computerized alcohol interventions, both of which are associated with less drinking in the short term, however face-to-face interventions produce risk reduction across a wider range of drinking outcomes as well as lasting longer compared to computerized interventions.

Abstract

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, the authors 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. They included studies examining FTFIs (N = 5237; 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 problem measures (d+s = 0.12–0.20). Moderator analyses identified participant and intervention characteristics that influence intervention efficacy. Overall, the authors conclude that FTFIs provide the most effective and enduring effects. Publisher Abstract Provided

Date Published: January 1, 2012