Individual-Level Strategies:

Multi-component education-focused program (MCEFP):

AlcoholEdu^® for College is a two-part, online program providing personalized feedback along with education around alcohol use. The first part of the program is typically completed in the summer before freshmen arrive on campus, with the second part being completed during the fall. Students must complete knowledge-based quizzes in order to complete the course. Cost of the program is based on first-year enrollment size. This program also may target individuals and all students.

A commercial product is available from EverFi at https://www.everfi.com/courses/higher-education/alcoholedu-awareness-prevention-undergraduate/.

For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210–21, 2011.

• Croom, K.; Lewis, D.; Marchell, T.; Lesser, M.L.; Reyna, V.F.; Kubicki-Bedford, L.; et al. Impact of an online alcohol education course on behavior and harm for incoming first-year college students: Short-term evaluation of a randomized trial. Journal of American College Health 57:445–54, 2009. (Indicates 2003-2004 version was used, but does not include the release number)
• Hustad, J.T.P.; Barnett, N.P.; Borsari, B.; and Jackson, K.M. Web-based alcohol prevention for incoming college students: A randomized controlled trial. Addictive Behaviors 35:183–89, 2010. (No version stated)
• Lovecchio, C.P.; Wyatt, T.M.; and DeJong, W. Reductions in drinking and alcohol-related harms reported by first-year college students taking an online alcohol education course: A randomized trial. Journal of Health Communication 15:805–19, 2010. (2007 version)

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Paschall, M.J.; Antin, T.; Ringwalt, C.L.; and Saltz, R.F. Evaluation of an Internet-based alcohol misuse prevention course for college freshmen: Findings from a randomized multi-campus trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 41(3):300–8, 2011a. (2008 version)
• Paschall, M.J.; Antin, T.; Ringwalt, C.L.; and Saltz, R.F. Effects of AlcoholEdu for college on alcohol-related problems among freshmen: A Randomized Multicampus Trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 72:642–50, 2011b. (2008 version)

References from 2019 update
No studies identified.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Skills training, alcohol focus:

Under this approach, students identified as having alcohol use problems set goals for limiting their alcohol use, based on their current drinking behaviors, other goals, and values.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Hagger, M.S.; Lonsdale, A.; and Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. A theory-based intervention to reduce alcohol drinking in excess of guideline limits among undergraduate students. British Journal of Health Psychology 17(1):18–43, 2012a.
• Hagger, M.S.; Lonsdale, A.; Koka, A.; Hein, V.; Pasi, H.; Lintunen, T.; et al. An intervention to reduce alcohol consumption in undergraduate students using implementation intentions and mental simulations: A cross-national study. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 19(1):82–96, 2012b.
• Werch, C.E.; Bian, H.; Moore, M.J.; Ames, S.; DiClemente, C.C.; and Weiler, R.M. Brief multiple behavior interventions in a college student health care clinic. Journal of Adolescent Health 41(6):577–85, 2007.
• Werch, C.E.; Moore, M.J.; Bian, H.; DiClemente, C.C.; Ames, S.; Weiler, R.M.; et al. Efficacy of a brief image-based multiple behavior intervention for college students. Annals of Behavioral Medicine36(2):149–57, 2008.
• Werch, C.E.; Moore, M.J.; Bian, H.; DiClemente, C.C.; Huang, I.C.; Ames, S.; et al. Are effects from a brief multiple behavior intervention for college students sustained over time? Preventive Medicine 50(1-2), 30–4, 2010.

References from 2019 update
No studies identified.

Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is rated here as a stand-alone intervention.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Skills training, alcohol plus general life skills:

ASTP is a multicomponent alcohol skills training program for students at risk of developing alcohol use problems. The program provides information about addiction and offers exercises and training to help students identify personal drinking cues, develop alcohol refusal skills, and manage stress. ASTP consists of eight 90-minute sessions; however, programs conducted in as few as two sessions have been evaluated.

A commercial program is available from Sociometrics at https://www.socio.com/products/alcohol-skills-training-program.

For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Baer, J.S.; Marlatt, G.A.; Kivlahan, D.R.; Fromme, K.; Larimer; M.E.; and Williams E. An experimental test of three methods of alcohol risk reduction with young adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60(6):974–9, 1992.
• Kivlahan, D.R.; Marlatt, G.A.; Fromme, K.; Coppel, D.B.; and Williams, E. Secondary prevention with college drinkers: Evaluation of an alcohol skills training program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58(6):805–10, 1990.
• Miller, E.T.; Kilmer, J.R.; Kim, E.L.; et al. Alcohol skills training for college students. In: Monti, P.M.; Colby, S.M.; and O’Leary, T.A., eds. Adolescents, Alcohol, and Substance Abuse: Reaching Teens Through Brief Interventions. New York, NY: Guilford Publications, 2001, pp. 183–215.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Hernandez, D.V.; Skewesb, M.C.; Resor, M.R.; Villanueva, M.R.; Hanson, B.S.; and Blume, A.W. A pilot test of an alcohol skills training programme for Mexican-American college students. International Journal of Drug Policy 17:320–28, 2006.
• Palmer, R.S.; Kilmer, J.R.; Ball, S.A.; and Larimer M.E. Intervention defensiveness as a moderator of drinking outcome among heavy-drinking mandated college students. Addictive Behaviors 35:1157–60, 2010.

References from 2019 update

• Logan, D.E.; Kilmer, J.R.; King, K.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Alcohol interventions for mandated students: Behavioral outcomes from a randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 76(1):31–37, 2015.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Brief motivational intervention (BMI):

BMI combines a brief intervention with motivational interviewing. BMI emphasizes personal responsibility and self-efficacy of participants, offering them personalized feedback on their alcohol use, risks, expectancies, perceptions of social norms, and options for reducing problems and consequences. Discussions are guided by a trained facilitator. Goals for behavioral change are set by participants.

One such BMI, which is the model after which most BMIs are patterned, is the Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS). BASICS involves initial screening to identify high-risk drinkers, subsequent baseline assessment to generate personalized feedback, and then a one-on-one meeting with the trained facilitator to review the feedback. In the original studies of BASICS, baseline assessment was completed in-person; participants were asked to self-monitor drinking for 2 weeks, then return for a second session to review their personalized feedback. More recent research has eliminated the first in-person meeting, opting instead to complete baseline assessment via the web.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration-Health Resources and Services Administration Center for Integrated Health Solutions, Brief Interventions (Online training and resources)

Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS): A Harm Reduction Approach(book, available for purchase for about $37. The developers of BASICS can provide on-site and off-site training; for more information, see http://depts.washington.edu/abrc/basics.htm).

For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Baer, J.S.; Marlatt, G.A.; Kivlahan, D.R.; Fromme, K.; Larimer, M.E.; and Williams, E. An experimental test of three methods of alcohol risk reduction with young adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60:974-79, 1992.
• Borsari, B.; and Carey, K.B. Effects of a brief motivational intervention with college student drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68:728–33, 2000.
• Dimeff, L.A.; and McNeely, M. Computer-enhanced primary care practitioner advice for high-risk college drinkers in a student primary health-care setting. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 7: 82-100, 2000.
• Larimer, M.E.; Turner, A.P.; Anderson, B.K.; Fader, J.S.; Kilmer, J.R.; Palmer, R.S.; et al. Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention with fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 62(3):370–80, 2001.
• Marlatt, G.A.; Baer, J.S.; Kivlahan, D.R.; Dimeff, L.A.; Larimer, M.E.; Quigley, L.A.; et al. Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a two-year follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66(4):604–15, 1998.
• Monti, P.M.; Colby, S.M.; Barnett, N.P.; Spirito, A.; Rohsenow, D.J.; Myers, M.; et al. Brief intervention for harm reduction with alcohol-positive older adolescents in a hospital emergency department. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67(6):989–94, 1999.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Barnett, N.P.; Murphy, J.G.; Colby, S.M.; and Monti, P.M. Efficacy of counselor vs. computer delivered intervention with mandated college students. Addictive Behaviors 31:2629−48, 2007.
• Borsari, B.; and Carey, K.B. Two brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 19(3):296−302, 2005.
• Carey, K.B.; Carey, M.P.; Maisto, S.A.; and Henson, J.M. Brief motivational interventions for heavy college drinkers: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 74(5):943−54, 2006.
• Gregory, B. College alcohol and life skills study with student-athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boca Raton, FL: Florida Atlantic University, 2001.
• McNally, A.; and Palfai, T.P. Brief group alcohol interventions with college students: Examining motivational components . Journal of Drug Education 33(2):159−76, 2003.
• McNally, A.M.; Palfai, T.P.; and Kahler, C.W. Motivational interventions for heavy drinking college students: Examining the role of discrepancy-related psychological processes . Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 19(1):79−87, 2005.
• Murphy, J.G.; Duchnick, J.J.; Vuchinich, R.E.; Davison, J.W.; Karg, R.S.; Olson, A.M.; et al. Relative efficacy of a brief motivational intervention for college student drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 15(4):373–9, 2001.
• Murphy, J.G.; Benson, T.A.; Vuchinich, R.E.; Deskins, M.M.; Eakin, D.; Flood, A.M.; et al. A comparison of personalized feedback for college student drinkers delivered with and without motivational interview . Journal of Studies on Alcohol 65(2):200–3, 2004.
• Neal DJ & Carey KB. Developing discrepancy within self regulation theory: Use of personalized normative feedback and personal strivings with heavy-drinking college students. Addictive Behaviors, 29(2):281–97, 2004.
• White, H.R.; Morgan, T.J.; Pugh, L.A.; Celinska, K.; Labouvie, E.W.; and Pandina, R.J. Evaluating two brief substance use interventions for mandated college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 67(2):309−17, 2006.

Cronce J.M.; and Larimer M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health, 34(2):210–21, 2011.

• Amaro, H.; Ahl, M.; Matsumoto, A.; Prado, G.; Mulé, C.; Kemmemer, A.; et al. Trial of the university assistance program for alcohol use among mandated students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (Suppl.16):45–56, 2009.
• Butler, L.H.; and Correia, C.J. Brief alcohol intervention with college student drinkers: Face-to-face versus computerized feedback. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 23(1):163–7, 2009.
• Carey, K.B.; Carey, M.P.; Maisto, S.A.; and Henson, J.M. Computer versus in-person intervention for students violating campus alcohol policy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(1):74–87, 2009.
• Carey, K.B.; Carey, M.P.; Henson, J.M.; et al. Brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students: Comparison of face-to-face counseling and computer-delivered interventions. Addiction 106(3):528–37, 2011.
• Doumas, D.M.; and Hannah, E. Preventing high-risk drinking in youth in the workplace: A Web-based normative feedback program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 34(3):263–71, 2008.
• Hansson, H.; Rundberg, J.; Zetterlind, U.; Johnsson, K.O.; and Berglund, M. Two-year outcome of an intervention program for university students who have parents with alcohol problems: A randomized controlled trial. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 31(11):1927–33, 2007.
• Schaus, J.F.; Sole, M.L.; McCoy, T.P.; Mullett, N.; and O’Brien, M.C. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in a college student health center: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (Suppl. 16):131–41, 2009.
• Turrisi, R.; Larimer, M.E.; Mallett, K.A.; Kilmer, J.R.; Ray, A.E.; and Mastroleo, N.R. A randomized clinical trial evaluating a combined alcohol intervention for high-risk college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 70(4):555–67, 2009.
• Walters, S.T.; Vader, A.M.; Harris, T.R.; Field, C.A. and Jouriles, E.N. Dismantling motivational interviewing and feedback for college drinkers: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(1):64–73, 2009.
• White, H.R.; Mun, E.Y.; Pugh, L.; and Morgan, T.J. Long-term effects of brief substance use interventions for mandated college students: Sleeper effects of an in-person personal feedback intervention. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 31(8):1380–91, 2007.
• Wood, M.D.; Capone, C.; Laforge, R.; Erickson, D.J.; and Brand, N.H. Brief motivational intervention and alcohol expectancy challenge with heavy drinking college students: A randomized factorial study. Addictive Behaviors 32(11):2509–28, 2007.
• Wood, M.D.; Fairlie, A.M.; Fernandez, A.C.; Borsari, B.; Capone, C.; Laforge, R.; et al. Brief motivational and parent interventions for college students: A randomized factorial study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 78(3):349–61, 2010.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Alfonso, J.; Hall, T.V.; and Dunn, M.E. Feedback‐based alcohol interventions for mandated students: An effectiveness study of three modalities . Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 20(5):411–23, 2013.
• Borsari, B.; Hustad, J.T.; Mastroleo, N.R.; Tevyaw, T.O.; Barnett, N.P.; Kahler, C.W.; et al. Addressing alcohol use and problems in mandated college students: A randomized clinical trial using stepped care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 80(6):1062–74, 2012.
• Carey, K.B.; DeMartini, K.S.; Prince, M.A.; Luteran, C.; and Carey, M.P. Effects of choice on intervention outcomes for college students sanctioned for campus alcohol policy violations. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 27(3):596–603, 2013.
• Ceperich, S.D.; and Ingersoll, K.S. Motivational interviewing + feedback intervention to reduce alcohol-exposed pregnancy risk among college binge drinkers: determinants and patterns of response. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 34(5):381–95, 2011.
• Cleveland, M.J.; Lanza, S.T.; Ray, A.E.; Turrisi, R.; and Mallett, K.A. Transitions in first-year college student drinking behaviors: Does pre-college drinking moderate the effects of parent- and peer-based intervention components? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 26(3), 440–50, 2012.
• DiFulvio, G.T.; Linowski, S.A.; Mazziotti, J.S.; and Puleo, E. Effectiveness of the brief alcohol and screening intervention for college students (BASICS) program with a mandated population. Journal of American College Health 60(4):269–80, 2012.
• Doumas, D.M.; Workman, C.; Navarro, A.; and Smith, D. Evaluation of web-based and counselor-delivered feedback interventions for mandated college students. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling 32:16–28, 2011. (BMI using e-CHUG for feedback)
• Doumas, D.M.; Workman, C.; Smith, D.; and Navarro, A. Reducing high-risk drinking in mandated college students: Evaluation of two personalized normative feedback interventions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 40(4):376–85, 2011. (BMI using e-CHUG for feedback; same sample as Doumas, et al., 2011)
• Fleming, M.F.; Balousek, S.L.; Grossberg, P.M.; Mundt, M.P.; Brown, D.; Wiegel, J.R.; et al. Brief physician advice for heavy drinking college students: A randomized controlled trial in college health clinics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 71(1):23–31, 2010.
• Ingersoll, K.S.; Ceperich, S.D.; Nettleman, M.D.; Karanda, K.; Brocksen, S.; and Johnson, B.A.  Reducing alcohol-exposed pregnancy risk in college women: Initial outcomes of a clinical trial of a motivational intervention. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 29(3): 173–80, 2005.
• Kulesza, M.; Apperson, M.; Larimer, M.E.; and Copeland, A.L. Brief alcohol intervention for college drinkers: How brief is? Addictive Behaviors 35(7):730–3, 2010.
• Murphy, J.G.; Dennhardt, A.A.; Skidmore, J.R.; Martens, M.P.; and McDevitt-Murphy, M.E. Computerized versus motivational interviewing alcohol interventions: Impact on discrepancy, motivation, and drinking. Psychology of Addictive Behavior 24(4):628–39, 2010.
• Murphy, J.G.; Dennhardt, A.A.; Skidmore, J.R.; Borsari, B.; Barnett, N.P.; Colby, S.M.; et al. A randomized controlled trial of a behavioral economic supplement to brief motivational interventions for college drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 80(5):876–86, 2012.
• Terlecki, M.A.; Larimer, M.E.; and Copeland, A.L. Clinical outcomes of a brief motivational intervention for heavy drinking mandated college students: A pilot study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 71(1):54–60, 2010.
• Terlecki, M.A.; Buckner, J.S.; Larimer, M.E.; and Copeland, A.L. The role of social anxiety in a brief alcohol intervention for heavy-drinking college students. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly 25(1):7–21, 2011.

References from 2019 update

• Borsari, B.; Apodaca, T.R.; Jackson, K.M.; et al. In-session processes of brief motivational interventions in two trials with mandated college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology83(1):56–67, 2015.
• Borsari, B.; Magill, M.; Mastroleo, N.R.; et al. Mandated college students’ response to sequentially administered alcohol interventions in a randomized clinical trial using stepped care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology84(2):103–112, 2016.
• Borsari, B.; Short, E.E.; Mastroleo, N.R.; et al. Phone-delivered brief motivational interventions for mandated college students delivered during the summer months. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment46(5):592–596, 2014.
• Clarke, N.C.; Field, M.; and Rose, A.K. Evaluation of a brief personalised intervention for alcohol consumption in college students. PLoS ONE10(6):e0131229, 2015.
• de Oliveira Christoff, A.; and Boerngen-Lacerda, R. Reducing substance involvement in college students: A three-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial of a computer-based intervention. Addictive Behaviors45:164–171, 2015.
• Dermen, K.H.; and Thomas, S.N. Randomized controlled trial of brief interventions to reduce college students' drinking and risky sex. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors25(4):583–594, 2011.
• Feldstein, S.W.; and Forcehimes, A.A. Motivational interviewing with underage college drinkers: A preliminary look at the role of empathy and alliance. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse33(5):737–746, 2007.
• Fridberg, D.J.; Cao, D.; and King, A.C. Integrating alcohol response feedback in a brief intervention for young adult heavy drinkers who smoke: A pilot study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence155:293–297, 2015.
• Hansson, H.; Rundberg, J.; Zetterlind, U.; et al. An intervention program for university students who have parents with alcohol problems: A randomized controlled trial. Alcohol and Alcoholism 41(6):655–663, 2006.
• Hustad, J.P.; Mastroleo, N.R.; Kong, L.; et al. The comparative effectiveness of individual and group brief motivational interventions for mandated college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors28(1):74–84, 2014.
• Kulesza, M.; McVay, M.A.; Larimer, M.E.; and Copeland, A.L. A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of two active conditions of a brief intervention for heavy college drinkers. Addictive Behaviors38(4):2094–2101, 2013.
• Lee, C.M.; Neighbors, C.; Lewis, M.A.; et al. Randomized controlled trial of a spring break intervention to reduce high-risk drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology82(2):189–201, 2014.
• Logan, D.E.; Kilmer, J.R.; King, K.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Alcohol interventions for mandated students: Behavioral outcomes from a randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 76(1):31–37, 2015.
• Martens, M.P.; Smith, A.E.; and Murphy, J.G. The efficacy of single-component brief motivational interventions among at-risk college drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology81(4):691–701, 2013.
• Mastroleo, N.R.; Turrisi, R.; Carney, J.V.; et al. Examination of posttraining supervision of peer counselors in a motivational enhancement intervention to reduce drinking in a sample of heavy-drinking college students. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 39(3):289–297, 2010.
• Mastroleo, N.R.; Magill, M.; Barnett, N.P.; and Borsari, B. A pilot study of two supervision approaches for peer-led alcohol interventions with mandated college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 75(3):458–466, 2014.
• Mastroleo, N.R.; Oakley, W.C.; Eaton, E.M.; and Borsari, B. Response of heavy-drinking voluntary and mandated college students to a peer-led brief motivational intervention addressing alcohol use. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment47(5):321–328, 2014.
• Merrill, J.E.; Reid, A.E.; Carey, M.P.; and Carey, K.B. Gender and depression moderate response to brief motivational intervention for alcohol misuse among college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology82(6):984–992, 2014.
• Monahan, C.J.; McDevitt-Murphy, M.E.; Dennhardt, A.A.; et al. The impact of elevated posttraumatic stress on the efficacy of brief alcohol interventions for heavy drinking college students. Addictive Behaviors38(3):1719–1725, 2013.
• Neighbors, C.; Lee, C.M.; Atkins, D.C.; et al. A randomized controlled trial of event-specific prevention strategies for reducing problematic drinking associated with 21st birthday celebrations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology80(5):850–862, 2012.
• Teeters, J.B.; Borsari, B.; Martens, M.P.; and Murphy, J.G. Brief motivational interventions are associated with reductions in alcohol-impaired driving among college drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs76(5):700–709, 2015.
• Terlecki, M.A.; Buckner, J.D.; Larimer, M.E.; and Copeland, A.L. Randomized controlled trial of brief alcohol screening and intervention for college students for heavy-drinking mandated and volunteer undergraduates: 12-month outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors29(1):2–16, 2015.
• Tevyaw, T.O.; Borsari, B.; Colby, S.M.; and Monti, P.M. Peer enhancement of a brief motivational intervention with mandated college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors21(1):114–119, 2007.
• Tollison, S.J.; Mastroleo, N.R.; Mallett, K.A.; et al. The relationship between baseline drinking status, peer motivational interviewing microskills, and drinking outcomes in a brief alcohol intervention for matriculating college students: A replication. Behavior Therapy44(1):137–151, 2013.
• Vader, A.M.; Walters, S.T.; Prabhu, G.C.; et al. The language of motivational interviewing and feedback: Counselor language, client language, and client drinking outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors24(2):190–197, 2010.
• Wagener, T.L.; Leffingwell, T.R.; Mignogna, J.; et al. Randomized trial comparing computer-delivered and face-to-face personalized feedback interventions for high-risk drinking among college students. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 43(2):260–267, 2012.
• Wilke, D.J.; Mennicke, A.; Howell, R.L.; and Magnuson, A.B. A peer-facilitated intervention to reduce risky drinking among fraternity and sorority members. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions 14(1):42–63, 2014.
• Yurasek, A.M.; Borsari, B.; Magill, M.; et al. Descriptive norms and expectancies as mediators of a brief motivational intervention for mandated college students receiving stepped care for alcohol use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors29(4):1003–1011, 2015.Yurasek, A.M.; Borsari, B.; Magill, M.; et al. Descriptive norms and expectancies as mediators of a brief motivational intervention for mandated college students receiving stepped care for alcohol use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors29(4):1003–1011, 2015.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Personalized feedback intervention (PFI):

PFI programs use a web-based assessment to generate graphic personalized feedback about students’ alcohol use, risks, expectancies, perceptions of social norms, and drinking motives. Feedback is delivered electronically or by mail and is not discussed with a trained facilitator.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.
Also see the FAQs for more information on generic PFI interventions.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Agostinelli, G.; Brown, J.M.; and Miller, W.R. Effects of normative feedback on consumption among heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education 25(1):31-40, 1995.
• Walters, S.T.; Bennett, M.E.; and Miller, J.H. Reducing alcohol use in college students: A controlled trial of two brief interventions. Journal of Drug Education 30(3):361–72, 2000.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Chiauzzi, E.; Green, T.C.; Lord, S.; Thum, C.; and Goldstein, M. My student body: A high-risk drinking prevention web site for college students. Journal of American College Health 53(6):263–74, 2005.
• Collins, S.E.; Carey, K.B.; and Sliwinski, M.J. Mailed personalized normative feedback as a brief intervention for at-risk college drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(5):559–67, 2002.
• Kypri, K.; Saunders, J.B.; Williams, S.M.; McGee, R.O.; Langley, J.D.; Cashell-Smith, M.L.; et al. Web-based screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Addiction 99(11):1410–17, 2004.
• Laforge (in Saunders, J.B.; Kypri, K.; Walters, S.T.; Larforge, R.G.; and Larimer, M.E. Approaches to brief intervention for hazardous drinking in young people. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 28(2):322−9, 2004.
• Larimer, M.E.; Lee, C.M.; Kilmer, J.R.; Fabiano, P.M.; Stark, C.B.; Geisner, I.M.; et al. Personalized mailed feedback for college drinking prevention: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 75(2):285−93, 2007
• Murphy, J.G.; Benson, T.A.; Vuchinich, R.E.; Deskins, M.M.; Eakin, D.; Flood, A.M.; et al. A comparison of personalized feedback for college student drinkers delivered with and without a motivational interview. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 65(2):200−3, 2004.
• White, H.R.; Morgan, T.J.; Pugh, L.A.; Celinska, K.; Labouvie, E.W.; and Pandina, R.J. Evaluating two brief substance use interventions for mandated college students . Journal of Studies on Alcoho, 67(2):309–17, 2006.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210-21, 2011.

• Bewick, B.M.; Trusler, K.; Mulhern, B.; Barkham, M.; and Hill, A.J. The feasibility and effectiveness of a web-based personalised feedback and social norms alcohol intervention in UK university students: A randomised control trial. Addictive Behaviors 33(9):1192–8, 2008.
• Butler, L.H.; and Correia, C.J. Brief alcohol intervention with college student drinkers: Face-to-face versus computerized feedback. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 23(1):163–7, 2009.
• Doumas, D.M.; and Hannah, E. Preventing high-risk drinking in youth in the workplace: A Web-based normative feedback program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 34(3):263–71, 2008.
• Doumas, D.M.; and Haustveit, T. Reducing heavy drinking in intercollegiate athletes: Evaluation of a Web-based personalized feedback program . The Sport Psychologist 22:212–28, 2008.
• Doumas, D.M.; McKinley, L.L.; and Book, P. Evaluation of two web-based alcohol interventions for mandated college students. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 36:65–74, 2009.
• Geisner, I.M.; Neighbors, C.; Lee, C.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Evaluating personal alcohol feedback as a selective prevention for college students with depressed mood. Addictive Behaviors 32(12):2776–87, 2007.
• Saitz, R.; Palfai, T.P.; Freedner, N.; Winter, M.; MacDonald, A.; Lu, J.; et al. Screening and brief intervention online for college students: The iHealth study . Alcohol and Alcoholism 42(1):28–36, 2007.
• Weitzel, J.A.; Bernhardt, J.M.; Usdan, S.; Mays, D.; and Glanz, K. Using wireless handheld computers and tailored text messaging to reduce negative consequences of drinking alcohol . Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68(4):534–7, 2007.
• White, H.R.; Mun, E.Y.; and Morgan, T.J. Do brief personalized feedback interventions work for mandated students or is it just getting caught that works? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 22(1):107–16, 2008.
• White, H.R.; Mun, E.Y.; Pugh, L.; and Morgan, T.J. Long-term effects of brief substance use interventions for mandated college students: Sleeper effects of an in-person personal feedback intervention. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 31(8):1380–91, 2007.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Bewick, B.M.; West, R.; Gill, J.; O’May, F.; Mulhern, B.; Barkham, M.; et al. Providing web-based feedback and social norms information to reduce student alcohol intake: A multisite investigation. Journal of Medical Internet Research 12(5):e59, 2010.
• Ekman, D.S.; Andersson, A.; Nilsen, P.; Ståhlbrandt, H.; Johansson, A.L.; and Bendtsen, P. Electronic screening and brief intervention for risky drinking in Swedish university students—A randomized controlled trial. Addictive Behaviors 36(6):654–9, 2011.
• Hendershot, C.S.; Otto, J.M.; Collins, S.E.; Liang, T.; and Wall, T.L. Evaluation of a brief web-based genetic feedback intervention for reducing alcohol-related health risks associated with ALDH2. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 40(1):77–88, 2010.
• Kypri, K.; Langley, J.D.; Saunders, J.B.; Cashell-Smith, M.L.; and Herbison, P. Randomized controlled trial of web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care . Archives of Internal Medicine 168(5):530–6, 2008.
• Kypri, K.; Hallett, J.; Howat, P.; McManus, A.; Maycock, B.; Bowe, S.; et al. Randomized controlled trial of proactive web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention for university students . Archives of Internal Medicine 169(16):1508–14, 2009.
• Martens, M.P.; Kilmer, J.R.; Beck, N.C.; and Zamboanga, B.L. The efficacy of a targeted personalized drinking feedback intervention among intercollegiate athletes: A randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 24(4):660–9, 2010.
• Palfai, T.; Zisserson, R.; and Saitz, R. Using personalized feedback to reduce alcohol use among hazardous drinking college students: The moderating effect of alcohol-related negative consequences. Addictive Behaviors 36(5):539–42, 2011.
• Schuckit, M.A.; Kalmijn, J.A.; Smith, T.L.; Saunders, G.; and Fromme, K. Structuring a college alcohol prevention program on the low level of response to alcohol model: A pilot study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 36(7):1244–52, 2012.

References from 2019 update

• Bewick, B.M.; West, R.M.; Barkham, M.; et al. The effectiveness of a web-based personalized feedback and social norms alcohol intervention on United Kingdom university students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15(7):e137, 2013.
• Braitman, A.L.; and Henson, J.M. Personalized boosters for a computerized intervention targeting college drinking: The influence of protective behavioral strategies. Journal of American College Health 64(7):509–519, 2016.
• Bryant, Z.E.; Henslee, A.M.; and Correia, C.J. Testing the effects of e-mailed personalized feedback on risky alcohol use among college students. Addictive Behaviors 38(10):2563–2567, 2013.
• de Oliveira Christoff, A.; and Boerngen-Lacerda, R. Reducing substance involvement in college students: A three-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial of a computer-based intervention. Addictive Behaviors 45:164–171, 2015.
• Ekman, D.S.; Andersson, A.; Nilsen, P.; et al. Electronic screening and brief intervention for risky drinking in Swedish university students—a randomized controlled trial. Addictive Behaviors 36(6):654–659, 2011.
• Geisner, I.M.; Varvil-Weld, L.; Mittmann, A.J.; et al. Brief web-based intervention for college students with comorbid risky alcohol use and depressed mood: Does it work and for whom? Addictive Behaviors 42:36–43, 2015.
• Gilmore, A.K.; and Bountress, K.E. Reducing drinking to cope among heavy episodic drinking college women: Secondary outcomes of a web-based combined alcohol use and sexual assault risk reduction intervention. Addictive Behaviors 61:104–111, 2016.
• Gilmore, A.K.; Lewis, M.A.; and George, W.H. A randomized controlled trial targeting alcohol use and sexual assault risk among college women at high risk for victimization. Behaviour Research and Therapy 74:38–49, 2015.
• Kypri, K.; McCambridge, J.; Vater, T.; et al. Web-based alcohol intervention for Māori university students: Double-blind, multi-site randomized controlled trial. Addiction 108(2):331–338, 2013.
• Kypri, K.; Vater, T.; Bowe, S.J.; et al. Web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention for university students: A randomized trial. JAMA 311(12):1218–1224, 2014.
• LaBrie, J.W.; Lewis, M.A.; Atkins, D.C.; et al. RCT of web-based personalized normative feedback for college drinking prevention: Are typical student norms good enough? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 81(6):1074–1086, 2013.
• Lee, C.M.; Neighbors, C.; Lewis, M.A.; et al. Randomized controlled trial of a spring break intervention to reduce high-risk drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology82(2):189–201, 2014.
• Leeman, R.F.; DeMartini, K.S.; Gueorguieva, R.; et al. Randomized controlled trial of a very brief, multicomponent web-based alcohol intervention for undergraduates with a focus on protective behavioral strategies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology84(11):1008–1015, 2016.
• Linowski, S.A.; DiFulvio, G.T.; Fedorchak, D.; and Puleo, E. Effectiveness of an electronic booster session delivered to mandated students. International Quarterly of Community Health Education 36(2):123–129, 2016.
• McCambridge, J.; Bendtsen, M.; Karlsson, N.; et al. Alcohol assessment and feedback by email for university students: Main findings from a randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry 203(5):334–340, 2013.
• Miller, M.B.; Leavens, E.L.; Meier, E.; et al. Enhancing the efficacy of computerized feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: An exploratory randomized trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 84(2):122–133, 2016.
• Neighbors, C.; Lee, C.M.; Atkins, D.C.; et al. A randomized controlled trial of event-specific prevention strategies for reducing problematic drinking associated with 21st birthday celebrations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology80(5):850–862, 2012.
• Palfai, T.P.; Winter, M.; Lu, J.; et al. Personalized feedback as a universal prevention approach for college drinking: A randomized trial of an e-mail linked universal web-based alcohol intervention. The Journal of Primary Prevention 35(2):75–84, 2014.
• Patrick, M.E.; Lee, C.M.; and Neighbors, C. Web-based intervention to change perceived norms of college student alcohol use and sexual behavior on spring break. Addictive Behaviors 39(3):600–606, 2014.
• Voogt, C.V.; Kuntsche, E.; Kleinjan, M.; et al. Using ecological momentary assessment in testing the effectiveness of an alcohol intervention: A two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 8(11):e78436, 2013.
• Voogt, C.V.; Poelen, E.A.; Kleinjan, M.; et al. The effectiveness of the ‘what do you drink’ web-based brief alcohol intervention in reducing heavy drinking among students: A two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial. Alcohol and Alcoholism 48(3):312–321, 2013.
• Voogt, C.; Kuntsche, E.; Kleinjan, M.; et al. Using ecological momentary assessment to test the effectiveness of a web-based brief alcohol intervention over time among heavy-drinking students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 16(1):e5, 2014.
• Witkiewitz, K.; Desai, S.A.; Bowen, S.; et al. Development and evaluation of a mobile intervention for heavy drinking and smoking among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 28(3):639–650, 2014.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Normative re-education:

PNF programs provide all students with personalized information about their alcohol use in comparison with actual use by their peers. This information is represented graphically (with charts and text, showing personal behavior juxtaposed with normative information). Delivery of PNF interventions is done without the involvement of a facilitator, and students are allowed to consider this information on their own.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.
Also see the FAQs for more information on generic PNF interventions.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors, 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Neighbors, C.; Larimer, M.E.; and Lewis, M.A. Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: Efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3):434−47, 2004.
• Neighbors, C.; Lewis, M.A; Bergstrom, R.L.; and Larimer, M.E. Being controlled by normative influences: Self-determination as a moderator of a normative feedback alcohol intervention. Health Psychology, 25(5):571−9, 2006.
• Walters, S.T.; Vader, A.M.; and Harris, T.R. A controlled trial of Web-based feedback for heavy drinking college students. Prevention Science, 8(1):83−8, 2007.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210–21, 2011.

• Lewis, M.A.; Neighbors, C.; Oster-Aaland, L; Kirkeby, B.S.; and Larimer, M.E. Indicated prevention for incoming freshmen: Personalized normative feedback and high-risk drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11):2495–508, 2007.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Moreira, M.T.; Oskrochi, R.; and Foxcroft, D.R. Personalised normative feedback for preventing alcohol misuse in university students: Solomon three-group randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 7(9):e44120, 2012.
• Werch, C.E.; Pappas, D.M, Carlson, J.M.; DiClemente, C.C.; Chally, P.S.; and Sinder, J.A. Results of a social norm intervention to prevent binge drinking among first-year residential college students. Journal of American College Health, 49(2):85–92, 2000.
• Neighbors, C.; Lewis, M.A.; Atkins, D.C.; Jensen, M.M.; Walter, T.; Fossos, N.; et al. Efficacy of Web-based personalized normative feedback: A two-year randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 78(6):898–911, 2010.

References from 2019 update

• Collins, S.E.; Kirouac, M.; Lewis, M.A.; et al. Randomized controlled trial of web-based decisional balance feedback and personalized normative feedback for college drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 75(6):982–992, 2014.
• LaBrie, J.W.; Lewis, M.A.; Atkins, D.C.; et al. RCT of web-based personalized normative feedback for college drinking prevention: Are typical student norms good enough?. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 81(6):1074–1086, 2013.
• Lewis, M.A.; Patrick, M.E.; Litt, D.M.; et al. Randomized controlled trial of a web-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention to reduce alcohol-related risky sexual behavior among college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 82(3):429–440, 2014.
• Martens, M.P.; Smith, A.E.; and Murphy, J.G. The efficacy of single-component brief motivational interventions among at-risk college drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology81(4):691–701, 2013.
• Miller, M.B.; Leavens, E.L.; Meier, E.; et al. Enhancing the efficacy of computerized feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: An exploratory randomized trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 84(2):122–133, 2016.
• Neighbors, C.; Lewis, M.A.; LaBrie, J.; et al. A multisite randomized trial of normative feedback for heavy drinking: Social comparison versus social comparison plus correction of normative misperceptions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 84(3):238, 2016.
• Pedersen, E.R.; Neighbors, C.; Atkins, D.C.; et al. Brief online interventions targeting risk and protective factors for increased and problematic alcohol use among American college students studying abroad. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 231:220–230, 2017.
• Prince, M.A.; Maisto, S.A.; Rice, S.L.; and Carey, K.B. Development of a face-to-face injunctive norms brief motivational intervention for college drinkers and preliminary findings. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 29(4):825–835, 2015. Taylor, M.J.; Vlaev, I.; Maltby, J.; et al. Improving social norms interventions: Rank-framing increases excessive alcohol drinkers’ information-seeking. Health Psychology 34(12):1200–1203, 2015.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Skills training, alcohol focus:

Self-monitoring/self-assessment approaches involve repeated assessment (e.g., daily diary, multiple longitudinal assessment spread out over weeks, months, or years) without any other intervention.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Cronin, C. Harm reduction for alcohol-use-related problems among college students. Substance Use and Misuse 31(14):2029–37, 1996.
• Garvin, R.B.; Alcorn, J.D.; and Faulkner, K.K. Behavioral strategies for alcohol abuse prevention with high-risk college males. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 36(1):23–34, 1990.
• Miller, E.T.; Kilmer, J.R.; Kim, E.L.; et al. Alcohol skills training for college students. In: Monti, P.M.; Colby, S.M.; and O’Leary, T.A., eds. Adolescents, Alcohol, and Substance Abuse: Reaching Teens Through Brief Interventions. New York, NY, Guilford Publications, 2001, pp. 183–215.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Carey, K.B.; Carey, M.P.; Maisto, S.A.; and Henson, J.M. Brief motivational interventions for heavy college drinkers: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 74(5):943−54, 2006.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• McCambridge, J.; and Day, M. Randomized controlled trial of the effects of completing the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test questionnaire on self-reported hazardous drinking. Addiction 103(2):241–8, 2008.

References from 2019 update

• Wagener, T.L.; Leffingwell, T.R.; Mignogna, J.; et al. Randomized trial comparing computer-delivered and face-to-face personalized feedback interventions for high-risk drinking among college students. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 43(2):260–267, 2012.
• Walters, S.T.; Vader, A.M.; Harris, T.R.; and Jouriles, E.N. Reactivity to alcohol assessment measures: An experimental test. Addiction104(8):1305–1310, 2009.
• Witkiewitz, K.; Desai, S.A.; Bowen, S.; et al. Development and evaluation of a mobile intervention for heavy drinking and smoking among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 28(3):639–650, 2014.

Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is rated here as a stand-alone intervention.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Personalized feedback intervention (PFI):

Alcohol eCHECKUP TO GO is a web-based survey that provides students with personalized feedback about their drinking patterns and how their alcohol use might affect their health and personal goals. The program has a special focus on two high-risk groups: first-year students and athletes. eCHECKUP TO GO is a commercial program. Campuses pay an annual subscription fee of about $1,000 for unlimited use of a customized program.

A commercial program developed by San Diego University is available at https://www.echeckuptogo.com/.

For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Walters, S.T.; Vader, A.M.; and Harris, T.R. A controlled trial of Web-based feedback for heavy drinking college students. Prevention Science 8(1):83−8, 2007. (No version stated)

Cronce J.M.; and Larimer M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health, 34(2):210–21, 2011.

• Doumas, D.M.; and Andersen, L.L. Reducing alcohol use in first-year university students: Evaluation of a Web-based personalized feedback program. Journal of College Counseling 12(1):18–32, 2009. (No version stated)
• Hustad, J.T.P.; Barnett, N.P.; Borsari, B.; and Jackson, K.M. Web-based alcohol prevention for incoming college students: A randomized controlled trial. Addictive Behaviors 35:183–89, 2010. (No version stated)
• Walters, S.T.; Vader, A.M.; Harris, T.R.; Field, C.A.; and Jouriles, E.N. Dismantling motivational interviewing and feedback for college drinkers: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(1):64–73, 2009. (No version stated)

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Alfonso, J.; Hall, T.V.; and Dunn, M.E. Feedback‐based alcohol interventions for mandated students: An effectiveness study of three modalities . Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 20(5):411–23, 2013. (No version stated)
• Doumas, D.M.; Haustveit, T.; and Coll, K.M. Reducing heavy drinking among first year intercollegiate athletes: A randomized controlled trial of Web-based normative feedback. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 22(3):247–61, 2010. (No version stated)
• Doumas, D.M.; Kane, C.M.; Navarro, B.B.; and Roman, J. Decreasing heavy drinking in first-year students: Evaluation of a Web-based personalized feedback program administered during orientation. Journal of College Counseling 14(1):5–20, 2011. (No version stated)
• Doumas, D.M.; Workman, C.; Navarro, A.; and Smith, D. Evaluation of Web-based and counselor-delivered feedback interventions for mandated college students. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling 32:16–28, 2011. (No version stated; same sample as Doumas et al., 2011)
• Doumas, D.M.; Workman, C.; Smith, D. and Navarro, A. Reducing high-risk drinking in mandated college students: Evaluation of two personalized normative feedback interventions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 40(4):376–85, 2011. (No version stated)
• Murphy, J.G.; Dennhardt, A.A.; Skidmore, J.R.; Martens, M.P.; and McDevitt-Murphy, M.E. Computerized versus motivational interviewing alcohol interventions: Impact on discrepancy, motivation, and drinking. Psychology of Addictive Behavior 24(4):628–39, 2010. (No version stated)

References from 2019 update

• Alfonso, J. The role of social norms in personalized alcohol feedback: A dismantling study with emerging adults. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 24(6):379–386, 2015.
• Ganz, T.; Braun, M.; Laging, M.; et al. Effects of a stand-alone web-based electronic screening and brief intervention targeting alcohol use in university students of legal drinking age: A randomized controlled trial. Addictive Behaviors 77:81–88, 2018.
• Jouriles, E.N.; Brown, A.S.; Rosenfield, D.; et al. Improving the effectiveness of computer-delivered personalized drinking feedback interventions for college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 24(4):592–599, 2010.
• Tahaney, K.D.; and Palfai, T.P. Text messaging as an adjunct to a web-based intervention for college student alcohol use: A preliminary study. Addictive Behaviors 73:63–66, 2017.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Normative re-education:

Globally, normative re-education programs are designed to provide students with accurate information about peer alcohol use and consequences and to modify their attitudes about the acceptability of their excessive alcohol consumption to their peers and parents.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Barnett, L.A.; Far, J.M.; Mauss, A.L.; and Miller, J.A. Changing perceptions of peer norms as a drinking reduction program for college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 41(2):39–62, 1996.
• Schroeder, C.M.; and Prentice, D.A. Exposing pluralistic ignorance to reduce alcohol use among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(23):2150–80, 1998.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• McNally, A.; and Palfai, T.P. Brief group alcohol interventions with college students: Examining motivational components. Journal of Drug Education 33(2):159−76, 2003.
• Peeler, C.M.; Far, J.; Miller, J.; and Brigham, T.A. An analysis of the effects of a program to reduce heavy drinking among college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 45(2):39−54, 2000.
• Stamper, G.A.; Smith, B.H.; Gant, R.; and Bogle, K.E. Replicated findings of an evaluation of a brief intervention designed to prevent high-risk drinking among first-year college students: Implications for social norming theory. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 48(2):53−72, 2004

References from 2019 update

• Prince, M.A.; Maisto, S.A.; Rice, S.L.; and Carey, K.B. Development of a face-to-face injunctive norms brief motivational intervention for college drinkers and preliminary findings. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 29(4):825–835, 2015.

^b = Intervention changed position in the matrix

Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is rated here as a stand-alone intervention.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Skills training, alcohol focus:

Experiential ECIs assign students to receive alcohol or a placebo, facilitate interaction in a social environment, and then ask students to guess who has or has not imbibed alcohol as a means of challenging students’ positive beliefs about the outcomes of alcohol use. Education on alcohol placebo effects is also provided.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Darkes, J.; and Goldman, M.S. Expectancy challenge and drinking reduction: Experimental evidence for a mediational process. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61(2):344–53, 1993.
• Darkes, J.; and Goldman, M.S. Expectancy challenge and drinking reduction: Process and structure in the alcohol expectancy network. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 6(1):64-76, 1998.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Musher-Eizenman, D.R.; and Kulick, A.D. An alcohol expectancy-challenge prevention program for at-risk college women. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 17(2):163−6, 2003.
• Wiers, R.W.; and Kummeling, R.H.C. An experimental test of an alcohol expectancy challenge in mixed gender groups of young heavy drinkers. Addictive Behaviors 26(1):215−20, 2004.
• Wiers, R.W.; van de Luitgaarden, J.; van den Wildenberg, E.; and Smulders, F.T. Challenging implicit and explicit alcohol-related cognitions in young heavy drinkers. Addiction 100(6):806−19, 2005.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210-21, 2011.

• Lau-Barraco, C.; and Dunn, M.E. Evaluation of a single-session expectancy challenge intervention to reduce alcohol use among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 22(2):168–75, 2008.
• Wood, M.D.; Capone, C.; Laforge, R.; Erickson, D.J.; and Brand, N.H. Brief motivational intervention and alcohol expectancy challenge with heavy drinking college students: A randomized factorial study. Addictive Behaviors 32(11):2509–28, 2007.

References from 2019 update
No studies identified.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Skills training, alcohol plus general life skills:

Parent-based alcohol communication training is a campus-sponsored program for parents of students, particularly incoming freshmen, to train parents to effectively talk with their children about alcohol use, avoidance, and consequences.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210-21, 2011.

• Turrisi, R.; Larimer, M.E.; Mallett, K.A.; Kilmer, J.R.; Ray, A.E.; Mastroleo, N.R.; et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating a combined alcohol intervention for high-risk college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 70:555–67, 2009.
• Wood, M.D.; Fairlie, A.M.; Fernandez, A.C.; Borsari, B.; Capone, C.; Laforge, R.; et al. Brief motivational and parent interventions for college students: A randomized factorial study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 78(3):349–61, 2010.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Donovan, E.; Wood, M.; Frayjo, K.; Black, R.A.; and Surette, D.A. A randomized, controlled trial to test the efficacy of an online, parent-based intervention for reducing the risks associated with college-student alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors 37:25–35, 2012. (MyStudentBody-Parent)
• Ichiyama, M.A.; Fairlie, A.M.; Wood, M.D.; Turrisi, R.; Francis, D.P.; Ray, A.E.; et al. A randomized trial of a parent-based intervention on drinking behavior among incoming college freshmen. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (Suppl. 16):67–76, 2009.
• Testa, M.; Hoffman, J.H.; Livingston, J.A.; and Turrisi, R. Preventing college women's sexual victimization through parent based intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science 11, 308–18, 2010.
• Turrisi, R.; Jaccard, J.; Taki R.; Dunnam, H.; and Grimes, J. Examination of the short-term efficacy of a parent intervention to reduce college student drinking tendencies. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 15:366–72, 2001.
• Turrisi, R.; Abar, C.; Taki, R.; Mallett, K.; and Jaccard, J. An examination of the mediational effects of cognitive and attitudinal factors of a parent intervention to reduce college drinking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40:2500–26, 2010

References from 2019 update

• Doumas, D.M.; Turrisi, R.; Ray, A.E.; et al. A randomized trial evaluating a parent based intervention to reduce college drinking. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment45(1):31–37, 2013.
• LaBrie, J.W.; Earle, A.M.; Boyle, S.C.; et al. A parent-based intervention reduces heavy episodic drinking among first-year college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors30(5):523–535, 2016.
• Napper, L.E.; LaBrie, J.W.; and Earle, A.M. Online personalized normative alcohol feedback for parents of first-year college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 30(8):802–810, 2016.
• Cleveland, M.J.; Hultgren, B.; Varvil‐Weld, L.; et al. Moderation of a parent‐based intervention on transitions in drinking: Examining the role of normative perceptions and attitudes among high‐ and low‐risk first‐year college students. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research37(9):1587–1594, 2013.
• Turrisi, R.; Mallett, K.A.; Cleveland, M.J.; et al. Evaluation of timing and dosage of a parent-based intervention to minimize college students' alcohol consumption. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 74(1):30–40, 2013.
• Grossbard, J.R.; Mastroleo, N.R.; Geisner, I.M.; et al. Drinking norms, readiness to change, and gender as moderators of a combined alcohol intervention for first-year college students. Addictive Behaviors 52:75–82, 2016.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Skills training, alcohol plus general life skills or general life skills only:

These programs combine training in skills aimed at reducing alcohol use (e.g., drink refusal and moderation of alcohol use) with training in general life skills (e.g., stress management, coping, and lifestyle balance), or they provide training only in general life skills as a means of reducing alcohol use.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Ametrano, I.M. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a substance-abuse prevention program. Journal of College Student Development 33(6):507–15, 1992.
• Garvin, R.B.; Alcorn, J.D.; and Faulkner, K.K. Behavioral strategies for alcohol abuse prevention with high-risk college males. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 36(1): 23–34, 1990.
• Jack, L.W. The educational impact of a course about addiction. Journal of Nursing Education 28(1):22–8, 1989.
• Marcello, R.J.; Danish, S.J.; and Stolberg, A.L. An evaluation of strategies developed to prevent substance abuse among student-athletes. The Sports Psychologist 3(3)196–211, 1989.
• Murphy, T.J.; Pagano, R.R.; and Marlatt, G.A. Lifestyle modification with heavy alcohol drinkers: Effects of aerobic exercise and meditation. Addictive Behaviors 11(2):175–86, 1986.
• Rohsenow, D.J.; Smith, R.E.; and Johnson, S. Stress management training as a prevention program for heavy social drinkers: Cognitions, affect, drinking, and individual differences. Addictive Behaviors 10(1):45–54, 1985.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Borsari, B.; and Carey, K.B. Two brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 19(3):296−302, 2005.
• Donohue, B.; Allen, D.N.; Maurer, A.; Ozols, J.; and DeStefano, G. A controlled evaluation of two prevention programs in reducing alcohol use among college students at low and high risk for alcohol related problems. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 48(1):13−33, 2004.
• Fromme, K.; and Corbin, W. Prevention of heavy drinking and associated negative consequences among mandated and voluntary college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72(6):1038−49, 2004.
• Guarna, J. Altering binge drinking behavior: An intervention based on the attention-allocation model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University, 2000.

• LaChance, H.; Feldstein Ewing, S.W.; Bryan, A.D.; and Hutchison, K.E. What makes group MET work? A randomized controlled trial of college student drinkers in mandated alcohol diversion. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors23(4):598–612, 2009.

• Peeler, C.M.; Far, J.; Miller, J.; and Brigham, T.A. An analysis of the effects of a program to reduce heavy drinking among college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 45:39−54, 2000.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210–21, 2011.

• Hansson, H.; Rundberg, J.; Zetterlind, U.; Johnsson, K.O.; and Berglund, M. Two-year outcome of an intervention program for university students who have parents with alcohol problems: A randomized controlled trial. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 31(11):1927–33, 2007.

References from 2019 update

• Donohue, B.C.; Loughran, T.A.; Pitts, M.T.; et al. Preliminary development of a brief intervention to prevent alcohol misuse and enhance sport performance in collegiate athletes. Journal of Drug Abuse 2:1–9, 2016.
• Hansson, H.; Rundberg, J.; Zetterlind, U.; et al. An intervention program for university students who have parents with alcohol problems: A randomized controlled trial. Alcohol and Alcoholism 41(6):655–663, 2006.
• Levin, M.E.; Haeger, J.A.; Pierce, B.G.; and Twohig, M.P. Web-based acceptance and commitment therapy for mental health problems in college students: A randomized controlled trial. Behavior Modification41(1):141–162, 2017.
• Moore, S.C.; Crompton, K.; van Goozen, S.; et al. A feasibility study of short message service text messaging as a surveillance tool for alcohol consumption and vehicle for interventions in university students. BMC Public Health 13(1):1011, 2013.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Brief motivational intervention (BMI):

In-person group BMI combines a brief intervention with motivational interviewing in a group (rather than in a one-on-one setting). BMI emphasizes personal responsibility and self-efficacy of participants, offering them personalized feedback on their alcohol use, risks, expectancies, perceptions of social norms, and options for reducing problems and consequences. A trained facilitator guides the group discussion. Goals for behavioral change are set by participants.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• LaChance, H.; Feldstein Ewing, S.W.; Bryan, A.D.; and Hutchison, K.E. What makes group MET work? A randomized controlled trial of college student drinkers in mandated alcohol diversion. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 23(4):598–612, 2009.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210–21, 2011.

• Cimini, M.D.; Martens, M.P.; Larimer, M.E.; Kilmer, J.R.; Neighbors, C.; and Monserrat, J.M. Assessing the effectiveness of peer-facilitated interventions addressing high-risk drinking among judicially mandated college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (Suppl.16):57–66, 2009.
• LaBrie, J.W.; Huchting, K.; Tawalbeh, S.; et al. A randomized motivational enhancement prevention group reduces drinking and alcohol consequences in first-year college women. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 22(1):149–55, 2008.
• Stahlbrandt, H.; Johnsson, K.O.; and Berglund, M. Two-year outcome of alcohol interventions in Swedish university halls of residence: A cluster randomized trial of a brief skills training program, twelve-step-influenced intervention, and controls. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 31(3):458–66, 2007.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Henslee, A.M.; and Correia, C.J. The use of freshmen seminar programs to deliver personalized feedback. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 53(3):39–52, 2009.

References from 2019 update

• Alfonso J.; Hall T.V.; and Dunn, M.E. Feedback‐based alcohol interventions for mandated students: An effectiveness study of three modalities. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 20(5):411–23, 2013.
• Hustad, J.P.; Mastroleo, N.R.; Kong, L.; et al. The comparative effectiveness of individual and group brief motivational interventions for mandated college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 28(1):74–84, 2014.
• Michael, K.D.; Curtin, L.; Kirkley, D.E.; et al. Group-based motivational interviewing for alcohol use among college students: An exploratory study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice37(6):629–634, 2006.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Multi-component education-focused programs (MCEFP):

Alcohol-Wise® is an approximately 1-hour-long online program providing personalized feedback through the eCHECKUP TO GO program along with education about alcohol use. Students must complete knowledge-based quizzes to complete the course.

A commercial program developed by 3^rd Millennium Classrooms (3^rd Mil) is available at https://web.3rdmil.com/college/.

For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

• Croom, K.; Staiano-Coico, L.; Lesser, M.L.; et al. The glass is half full: Evidence for efficacy of Alcohol-Wise at one university but not the other. Journal of Health Communication 20(6):627–638, 2015.
• Gilbertson, R.J.; Norton, T.R.; Beery, S.H.; and Lee, K.R. Web-based alcohol intervention in first-year college students: Efficacy of full-program administration prior to second semester. Substance Use & Misuse 53(6):1021–1029, 2017.
• Strohman, A.S.; Braje, S.E.; Alhassoon, O.M.; et al. Randomized controlled trial of computerized alcohol intervention for college students: Role of class level. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 42(1):15–24, 2016.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Skills training, alcohol focus:

Decisional balance exercises involve weighing the pros and cons of behavior change versus maintenance of the status quo without any other intervention.

For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Collins, S.E.; and Carey, K.B. Lack of effect for decisional balance as a brief motivational intervention for at-risk college drinkers. Addictive Behaviors 30(7):1425–30, 2005.
• Labrie, J.W. Weighing the pros and cons: A brief motivational intervention reduces risk associated with drinking and unsafe sex. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, 2002.

References from 2019 update

• Collins, S.E.; Kirouac, M.; Lewis, M.A.; et al. Randomized controlled trial of web-based decisional balance feedback and personalized normative feedback for college drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 75(6):982–992, 2014.

^a = New intervention (2019)

Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is rated here as a stand-alone intervention.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Skills training, alcohol focus:

Protective behavioral strategies involve delivery of tips for minimizing or avoiding alcohol-related harms without any other intervention.

For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Studies from Larimer & Cronce (2007)

• Smith, B.H.; Bogle, K.E.; Talbott, L.; Gant, R.; and Castillo, H. A randomized study of four cards designed to prevent problems during college students’ 21st birthday celebrations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 67(4):607−15, 2006.

References from 2019 update

• Bock, B.C.; Barnett, N.P.; Thind, H.; et al. A text message intervention for alcohol risk reduction among community college students: TMAP. Addictive Behaviors63:107–113, 2016.
• Dvorak, R.D.; Pearson, M.R.; Neighbors, C.; and Martens, M.P. Fitting in and standing out: Increasing the use of alcohol protective behavioral strategies with a deviance regulation intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology83(3):482–493, 2015.
• Kenney, S.R.; Napper, L.E.; LaBrie, J.W.; and Martens, M.P. Examining the efficacy of a brief group protective behavioral strategies skills training alcohol intervention with college women. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors28(4):1041–1051, 2014.
• Martens, M.P.; Smith, A.E.; and Murphy, J.G. The efficacy of single-component brief motivational interventions among at-risk college drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology81(4):691–701, 2013.

^a = New intervention (2019)

Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is rated here as a stand-alone intervention.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Normative re-education:

Under this event-specific prevention PNF strategy, students receive a birthday card on their 21^st birthday, warning them against excessive celebratory drinking.

Examples of cards used by universities:

• Northern Arizona University: https://in.nau.edu/campus-health-services/health-promotion/
• Cal Poly Pomona: https://www.cpp.edu/~healthcounseling/what-we-do/wellness-services/21st-birthday-card.shtml

For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Smith, B.H.; Bogle, K.E.; Talbott, L.; Gant, R.; and Castillo, H. A randomized study of four cards designed to prevent problems during college students’ 21st birthday celebrations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 67(4):607−15, 2006.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210–21, 2011.

• Lewis, M.A.; Neighbors, C.; Lee, C.M.; & Oster-Aaland L. 21st birthday celebratory drinking: Evaluation of a personalized normative feedback card intervention. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 22(2):176–85, 2008.
• Neighbors, C.; Lee, C.M.; Lewis, M.A.; Fossos, N.; and Walter, T. Internet-based personalized feedback to reduce 21st birthday drinking: A randomized controlled trial of an event-specific prevention intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(1):51–63, 2009.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• LaBrie, J.W.; Migliuri, S.; and Cail, J. A night to remember: A harm-reduction birthday card intervention reduces high-risk drinking during 21st birthday celebrations. Journal of American College Health 57(6):659-63, 2009.

References from 2019 update
No studies identified

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Skills training, alcohol plus general life skills:

Alcohol 101 Plus^™ is a web-based modification of the earlier CD-ROM-based Alcohol 101 program. It provides alcohol education and skills training using a “virtual campus,” modeling potential drinking situations and discussing possible consequences and alternatives. Personalized blood alcohol concentration (BAC) calculations also are provided. The program is free to all students and educators.

Copies of the program may be available from the developer: https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-101/. The program is available from commercial retailers in CD-ROM format.

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210-21, 2011.

• Carey, K.B.; Carey, M.P.; Henson, J.M.; et al. Brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students: Comparison of face-to-face counseling and computer-delivered interventions. Addiction 106(3):528–37, 2011.
• Carey, K.B.; Henson, J.M.; Carey, M.P.; and Maisto, S.A. Computer versus in-person intervention for students violating campus alcohol policy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(1):74–87, 2009.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Carey, K.B.; DeMartini, K.S.; Prince, M.A.; Luteran, C.; and Carey, M.P. Effects of choice on intervention outcomes for college students sanctioned for campus alcohol policy violations. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 27(3):596–603, 2013.

References from 2019 update

• Braitman, A.L.; and Henson, J.M. Personalized boosters for a computerized intervention targeting college drinking: The influence of protective behavioral strategies. Journal of American College Health 64(7):509–519, 2016.

^b = Intervention changed position in the matrix

Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Information/knowledge/​education

Information/knowledge/education programs solely provide students with alcohol-related education (e.g., how alcohol is processed by the body, potential consequences of alcohol misuse), without any alcohol-specific skills training.

Resources are only identified for programs with sufficient research support for CollegeAIM to rate as effective at any level (higher, moderate, or lower).

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Darkes, J.; and Goldman, M.S. Expectancy challenge and drinking reduction: Experimental evidence for a mediational process. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61(2):344–53, 1993.
• Flynn, C.A.; and Brown, W.E. The effects of a mandatory alcohol education program on college student problem drinkers. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 37(1):15–24, 1991.
• Garvin, R.B.; Alcorn, J.D.; and Faulkner, K.K. Behavioral strategies for alcohol abuse prevention with high-risk college males. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education36(1):23–34, 1990.
• Kivlahan, D.R.; Marlatt, G.A.; Fromme, K.; Coppel, D.B.; and Williams, E. Secondary prevention with college drinkers: Evaluation of an alcohol skills training program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58(6):805–10, 1990.
• Meier, S.T. An exploratory study of a computer-assisted alcohol education program. Computers in Human Services 3(3-4):111–21, 1988.
• Roush, K.L.; and Deblassie, R.R. Structured group counseling for college students of alcoholic parents. Journal of College Student Development 30(3):276–7, 1989.
• Schall, M.; Kemeny, A.; and Maltzman, I. Drinking by university dormitory residents: Its prediction and amelioration. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education36(3):75–86, 1991.

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Chiauzzi, E.; Green, T.C.; Lord, S.; Thum, C.; and Goldstein, M. My student body: A high-risk drinking prevention web site for college students. Journal of American College Health, 53:263−74, 2005.
• Collins, S.E.; Carey, K.B.; and Sliwinski, M.J. Mailed personalized normative feedback as a brief intervention for at-risk college drinkers . Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(5):559−67, 2002.
• Keillor, R.M.; Perkins, W.B.; and Horan, J.J. Effects of videotaped expectancy challenges on alcohol consumption of adjudicated students. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 13(3):179−87, 1999.
• Kypri, K.; Saunders, J.B.; Williams, S.M.; McGee, R.O.; Langley, J.D.; Cashell-Smith, M.L.; et al. Web-based screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Addiction 99(11):1410−17, 2004.
• LaChance, H.; Feldstein Ewing, S.W.; Bryan, A.D.; and Hutchison, K.E. What makes group MET work? A randomized controlled trial of college student drinkers in mandated alcohol diversion.  Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 23(4):598-612, 2009.
• Lysaught, E.M.; Wodarski, J.S.; and Parris, H. A comparison of an assessment/information-based group versus an assessment-only group: An investigation of drinking reduction with young adults. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 8(4):23−43, 2003.
• Murphy, J.G.; Duchnick, J.J.; Vuchinich, R.E.; Davison, J.W.; Karg, R.S.; Olson, A.M.; et al. Relative efficacy of a brief motivational intervention for college student drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 15(4):373−9, 2001.
• Neal, D.J.; and Carey, K.B. Developing discrepancy within self regulation theory: Use of personalized normative feedback and personal strivings with heavy-drinking college students. Addictive Behaviors 29(2):281−97, 2004.
• Neighbors, C.; Spieker, C.J.; Oster-Aaland, L.; Lewis, M.A.; and Bergstrom, R.L. Celebration intoxication: An evaluation of 21st birthday alcohol consumption. Journal of American College Health 54(2):76−80, 2005.
• Sharmer, L. Evaluation of alcohol education programs on attitude, knowledge, and self-reported behavior of college students. Evaluation and the Health Professions 23(3):336−57, 2001.
• Smith, B.H.; Bogle, K.E.; Talbott, L.; Gant, R.; and Castillo, H. A randomized study of four cards designed to prevent problems during college students’ 21st birthday celebrations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 67(4):607−15, 2006.

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210–21, 2011.

• Doumas, D.M.; and Haustveit, T. Reducing heavy drinking in intercollegiate athletes: Evaluation of a Web-based personalized feedback program . TheSport Psychologist, 22:212–28, 2008.
• Doumas, D.M.; McKinley, L.L.; and Book, P. Evaluation of two Web-based alcohol interventions for mandated college students. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 36(1):65–74, 2009.
• Schaus, J.F.; Sole, M.L.; McCoy, T.P.; Mullett, N.; and O’Brien, M.C. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in a college student health center: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (Suppl. 16):131–41, 2009.
• Thadani, V.; Huchting, K.; and LaBrie, J. Alcohol-related information in multi-component interventions and college students’ drinking behavior. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 53(2):31–51, 2009.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Hembroff, L.; Atkin, C.; Martell, D.; McCue, C.; and Greenamyer, J.T. Evaluation results of a 21st birthday card program targeting high-risk drinking. Journal of American College Health 56(3):325–32, 2007.

References from 2019 update

• Bernstein, M.H.; Wood, M.D.; and Erickson, L.R. The effectiveness of message framing and temporal context on college student alcohol use and problems: A selective e-mail intervention. Alcohol and Alcoholism 51(1):106–116, 2015.
• Donovan, E.; Das Mahapatra, P.; Green, T.C.; et al. Efficacy of an online intervention to reduce alcohol-related risks among community college students. Addiction Research & Theory 23(5):437–447, 2015.
• Gerend, M.A.; and Cullen, M. Effects of message framing and temporal context on college student drinking behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(4):1167–1173, 2008.
• Logan, D.E.; Kilmer, J.R.; King, K.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Alcohol interventions for mandated students: Behavioral outcomes from a randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 76(1):31–37, 2015.
• Martens, M.P.; Smith, A.E.; and Murphy, J.G. The efficacy of single-component brief motivational interventions among at-risk college drinkers.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 81(4):691–701, 2013.
• Riordan, B.C.; Conner, T.S.; Flett, J.M.; and Scarf, D. A brief orientation week ecological momentary intervention to reduce university student alcohol consumption. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs76(4):525–529, 2015.
• Riordan, B.C.; Conner, T.S.; Flett, J.A.; and Scarf, D. A text message intervention to reduce first year university students’ alcohol use: A pilot experimental study. Digital Health 3(1), 2017.
• Weitzel, J.A.; Bernhardt, J.M.; Usdan, S.; et al. Using wireless handheld computers and tailored text messaging to reduce negative consequence of drinking alcohol.Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68(4):534–537, 2007.

Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is rated here as a stand-alone intervention.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Values clarification

Values clarification programs are designed to help students evaluate their values and goals and incorporate responsible decision-making about alcohol use into these values and goals.

Resources are only identified for programs with sufficient research support for CollegeAIM to rate as effective at any level (higher, moderate, or lower).

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Barnett, L.A.; Far, J.M.; Mauss, A.L.; and Miller, J.A. Changing perceptions of peer norms as a drinking reduction program for college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 41(2):39–62, 1996.
• Meacci, W.G. An evaluation of the effects of college alcohol education on the prevention of negative consequences. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 35(3): 66-72, 1990.
• Schroeder, C.M.; and Prentice, D.A. Exposing pluralistic ignorance to reduce alcohol use among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(23):2150–80, 1998 

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Neal, D.J.; and Carey, K.B. Developing discrepancy within self regulation theory: Use of personalized normative feedback and personal strivings with heavy-drinking college students. Addictive Behaviors 29(2):281−97, 2004.
• Stamper, G.A.; Smith, B.H.; Gant, R.; and Bogle, K.E. Replicated findings of an evaluation of a brief intervention designed to prevent high-risk drinking among first-year college students: Implications for social norming theory. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 48(2):53−72, 2004.

References from 2019 update

• Scott, J.L.; Brown, A.C.; Phair, J.K.; et al. Self-affirmation, intentions and alcohol consumption in students: A randomized exploratory trial. Alcohol and Alcoholism48(4):458–463, 2013.

^b = Intervention changed position in the matrix

Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is rated here as a stand-alone intervention.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Skills training, alcohol focus:

BAC feedback programs involve presenting students with their actual BAC, usually based on breath samples, during or following an evening of drinking. These programs challenge students’ perceptions of their level of intoxication based on an objective BAC measurement or provide an incentive for students to limit their alcohol consumption (e.g., remaining under a certain BAC at a social event).

Resources are only identified for programs with sufficient research support for CollegeAIM to rate as effective at any level (higher, moderate, or lower).

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210-21, 2011.

• Glindemann, K.E.; Ehrhart, I.J.; Drake, E.A.; and Geller, E.S. Reducing excessive alcohol consumption at university fraternity parties: A cost-effective incentive/reward intervention. Addictive Behaviors 32(1):39–48, 2007.
• Thombs, D.L.; Olds, R.S.; Osborn, C.J.; Casseday, S.; Glavin, K.; and Berkowitz, A.D. Outcomes of a technology-based social norms intervention to deter alcohol use in freshman residence halls. Journal of American College Health 55(6):325–32, 2007.

References from 2019 update

• Gajecki, M.; Berman, A.H.; Sinadinovic, K.; et al. Mobile phone brief intervention applications for risky alcohol use among university students: A randomized controlled study. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice 9(1):11, 2014.

^b = Intervention changed position in the matrix

Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is evaluated here as a stand-alone intervention.

Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Skills training, alcohol focus:

ECIs target positive beliefs about the outcomes of alcohol use, highlighting through education or direct experience how many behaviors associated with alcohol use are driven by cognitions rather than pharmacology. Education on alcohol placebo effects is provided during in-person discussion or lecture or via video as a means of challenging students’ positive beliefs about the outcomes of alcohol use.

Resources are only identified for programs with sufficient research support for CollegeAIM to rate as effective at any level (higher, moderate, or lower).

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Jones, L.M.; Silvia, L.Y.; and Richman, C.L. Increased awareness and self-challenge of alcohol expectancies. Substance Abuse 16(2):77–85, 1995 

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

• Corbin, W.R.; McNair, L.D.; and Carter, J.A. Evaluation of a treatment-appropriate cognitive intervention for challenging alcohol outcome expectancies. Addictive Behaviors 26(4):475−88, 2001.
• Hunt, W.M. Effects of participant engagement on alcohol expectancies and drinking outcomes for a computerized expectancy challenge intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tampa, FL: University of Southern Florida, 2004.
• Keillor, R.M.; Perkins, W.B.; and Horan, J.J. Effects of videotaped expectancy challenges on alcohol consumption of adjudicated students. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 13(3):179−87, 1999.

 Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Fried, A.B.; and Dunn, M.E. The expectancy challenge alcohol literacy curriculum (ECALC): A single session group intervention to reduce alcohol use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 26(3):615–20, 2012.
• Moore, M.; Soderquist, J.; and Werch, C. Feasibility and efficacy of a binge drinking prevention intervention for college students delivered via the internet versus postal mail. Journal of American College Health 54(1):38–44, 2005.

References from 2019 update

No studies identified.

Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is rated here as a stand-alone intervention.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Multi-component education-focused programs (MCEFP):

MCEFP approaches target alcohol misuse by teaching students an array of alcohol-related skills (e.g., drink refusal, monitoring alcohol use, spacing drinks, advanced planning) and providing associated education to support skill use. Programs in this category not identified by name are highly variable in content and have not been sufficiently studied to draw strong conclusions about any individual program.

Resources are only identified for programs with sufficient research support for CollegeAIM to rate as effective at any level (higher, moderate, or lower).

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210–21, 2011. 

• Bersamin, M.; Paschall, M.J.; Fearnow-Kenney, M.; and Wyrick, D. Effectiveness of a Web-based alcohol-misuse and harm-prevention course among high- and low-risk students. Journal of American College Health 55(4):247–54, 2007. (CollegeAlc)
• Carey, K.B.; Carey, M.P.; Henson, J.M.; et al. Brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students: Comparison of face-to-face counseling and computer-delivered interventions. Addiction 106(3):528–37, 2011. (AlcoholEdu for Sanctions)

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Bingham, C.R.; Barretto, A.I.; Walton, M.A.; Bryant, C.M.; Shope, J.T.; and Raghunathan, T.E. Efficacy of a Web-based, tailored, alcohol prevention/intervention program for college students: Initial findings. Journal of American College Health 58(4):349–56, 2010. (M-PASS)
• Bingham, C.R.; Barretto, A.I.; Walton, M.A.; Bryant, C.M.; Shope, J.T.; and Raghunathan, T.E. Efficacy of a Web-based, tailored, alcohol prevention/intervention program for college students: 3-month follow-up. Journal of Drug Education 41(4):405–30, 2011. (M-PASS; same sample as Bingham et al., 2010)

References from 2019 update

• Donovan, E.; Das Mahapatra, P.; Green, T.C.; et al. Efficacy of an online intervention to reduce alcohol-related risks among community college students. Addiction Research & Theory23(5):437–447, 2015. (MyStudentBody)

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Personalized feedback intervention (PFI):

CheckYourDrinking is a web-based 18-question survey on personal drinking habits that provides survey takers with individualized feedback on their risk of alcohol-related diseases. Users can email results to themselves or their health care professional. The program is free.

Resources are only identified for programs with sufficient research support for CollegeAIM to rate as effective at any level (higher, moderate, or lower).

Cronce, J.M.; and Larimer, M.E. Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health 34(2):210–21, 2011.

• Doumas, D.; and Haustveit, T. Reducing heavy drinking in intercollegiate athletes: Evaluation of a Web-based personalized feedback program . The Sport Psychologist 22(2):212–28, 2008. (No version stated; only information indicates it is “available at http://notes.camh.net/efeed.nsf/newform (for a full description of the program, see Cunningham, Humphreys, and Koski-Jannes, 2000).” Assumption is that this is the “beta” version.)
• Doumas, D.M.; McKinley, L.L.; and Book, P. Evaluation of two web-based alcohol interventions for mandated college students . Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 36:65–74, 2009. (No version stated; only information indicates it is “available at http://notes.camh.net/efeed.nsf/newform (for a full description of the program, see Cunningham, Humphreys, & Koski-Jannes, 2000).”  Assumption is that this is the “beta” version.) 

References from 2019 update

No studies identified.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Personalized feedback intervention (PFI):

The College Drinker’s Check-up (CDCU) is a single-session, web-based program for students who drink heavily and is an adaptation of the well-established in-person Drinker’s Check-Up, originally developed for heavy-drinking adults. Students receive personalized feedback on the quantity and frequency of their alcohol use in comparison with same-gender college peers. Students also receive blood alcohol content feedback. The CDCU is a commercial product. Campuses pay a one-time cost based on size: $2,500 for smaller institutions (<15,000 students) and $4,500 for larger institutions.

Information on the College Drinker’s Checkup is available at: https://checkupandchoices.com/

For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

• Hester, R.K.; Delaney, H.D.; and Campbell, W. The college drinker's check-up: Outcomes of two randomized clinical trials of a computer-delivered intervention. Psychology of Addictive Behavior 26(1):1–12, 2012. (Only one version appears available)

References from 2019 update

• Carey, K.B.; Balestrieri, S.G.; Miller, M.B.; et al. Efficacy of the college drinkers check-up for student drinkers living off campus. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 78(4):571–579, 2017.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Electronic/mailed Personalized Feedback Intervention (PFI):

Drinking Assessment and Feedback Tool for College Students (DrAFT-CS) is a computer-delivered personalized feedback experience designed to approximate in-person interventions, through the inclusion of a video clinician that explains each piece of the feedback as it is presented.

For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.

References from 2019 update

• Wagener, T.L.; Leffingwell, T.R.; Mignogna, J.; et al. Randomized trial comparing computer-delivered and face-to-face personalized feedback interventions for high-risk drinking among college students. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 43(2):260–267, 2012.
• Weaver, C.C.; Leffingwell, T.R.; Lombardi, N.J.; et al. A computer-based feedback only intervention with and without a moderation skills component. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 46(1):22–28, 2014.

^a = New intervention (2019)

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

Strategies are listed by brand name if they were evaluated by at least two RCTs; strategies labeled generic/other have similar components and were not identified by name in the research or were evaluated by only one RCT; strategies labeled miscellaneous have the same approach but very different components.

Screening and behavioral treatments

Screening and brief intervention: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that primary care clinicians (1) conduct alcohol screening in adults aged 18 years or older and (2) provide brief behavioral counseling interventions for the full range of unhealthy drinking behaviors, from risky drinking to alcohol dependence. The USPSTF concludes that brief behavioral counseling interventions reduce heavy drinking episodes and increase adherence to recommended drinking limits. 

Additional behavioral treatments: For some students, brief counseling sessions may not be sufficient for resolving drinking problems. In these cases, more intensive behavioral treatments can be beneficial, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational enhancement therapy. Ultimately, choosing to get treatment may be more important than the approach used, provided it avoids heavy confrontation and incorporates empathy, motivational support, and a focus on changing drinking behavior.
----------

NIAAA, Treatment for Alcohol Problems: Finding and Getting Help (2014)

No studies

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

The “Interventions delivered by health professionals” were not rated relative to other individual-level strategies in CollegeAIM because of differences in research populations, along with wide variations in costs and barriers to providing these services across campuses.

Instead, they are included in CollegeAIM based on
(1) The recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that “clinicians screen adults aged 18 years or older for alcohol misuse and provide persons engaged in risky or hazardous drinking with brief behavioral counseling interventions to reduce alcohol misuse” and
(2) Approval of three medications for alcohol use disorder by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

See Potential Resources for support in providing these and other interventions, or referrals when needed

Medications for alcohol use disorder

Three medications have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to help people cut back or stop drinking and avoid relapse: naltrexone (in two forms, oral and extended-release injection), acamprosate, and disulfiram. They are not addictive, and can be used alone, but often are used in combination with counseling.
----------------------
This intervention is an important option for students who are already experiencing alcohol-related problems. Health care professionals in your campus health and counseling centers can help you identify these students, or residence hall or security staff members may bring students with alcohol-related conduct violations to your attention.

See Potential Resources for support in providing this and other interventions, or referrals when needed.

NIAAA, Treatment for Alcohol Problems: Finding and Getting Help (2014)

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Medication for the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder: A Brief Guide (2015)

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.

• Davidson, D.; Swift, R.; Fitz, E. Naltrexone increases the latency to drink alcohol in social drinkers. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 20(4):732-739, 1996.

References from 2019 update

• DeMartini, K.S.; Gueorguieva, R.; Leeman, R.F.; et al. Longitudinal findings from a randomized clinical trial of naltrexone for young adult heavy drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 84(2):185–190, 2016.
• O'Malley, S.S.; Corbin, W.R.; Leeman, R.F.; et al. Reduction of alcohol drinking in young adults by naltrexone: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry76(2):e207–e213, 2015.

Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.

The “Interventions delivered by health professionals” were not rated relative to other individual-level strategies in CollegeAIM because of differences in research populations, along with wide variations in costs and barriers to providing these services across campuses.

Instead, they are included in CollegeAIM based on
(1) The recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that “clinicians screen adults aged 18 years or older for alcohol misuse and provide persons engaged in risky or hazardous drinking with brief behavioral counseling interventions to reduce alcohol misuse” and
(2) Approval of three medications for alcohol use disorder by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

See Potential Resources for support in providing these and other interventions, or referrals when needed