Individual-Level Strategies:

Individual-level strategies aim to produce changes in attitudes or behaviors related to alcohol use rather than the environments in which alcohol use occurs. Expected outcomes, in general, are that a strategy may decrease an individual’s alcohol use (e.g., frequency, quantity, or blood alcohol concentration) and/or alcohol-related risk-taking behaviors, thereby reducing harmful consequences. All studies used college students as the research population.

a = New intervention (2019)
b = Intervention changed position in the matrix (2019)

Full Individual Matrix

Individual Strategies

Multi-component education-focused program (MCEFP):

AlcoholEdu® for College

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.


Effectiveness:star star star = Higher effectiveness

Cost:$$$ = Higher

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:** = 4 to 6 studies

Potential Resources:

A commercial product is available from EverFi at http://www.everfi.com/alcoholedu-for-college.

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

References:

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.

 

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update
No studies identified.

Footnotes:

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:

Goal/intention-setting alone

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.


Effectiveness:star star star = Higher effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:## = Moderate

Primary Modality: In-person individual

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:** = 4 to 6 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update
No studies identified.

Footnotes:

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:

Alcohol Skills Training Program (ASTP)

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.


Effectiveness:star star star = Higher effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: In-person group

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:*** = 7 to 10 studies

Potential Resources:

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.

References:

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

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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—Individual

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.


Effectiveness:star star star = Higher effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:## = Moderate

Primary Modality: In-person individual

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:**** = 11+ studies

Potential Resources:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Brief Intervention Stages of Change and Motivational Interviewing (PowerPoint presentation)

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.

References:

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

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

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

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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):

Generic/other

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.


Effectiveness:star star star = Higher effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:## = Moderate

Primary Modality: Online

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:**** = 11+ studies

Potential Resources:

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.

References:

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.

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

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

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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:

Electronic/mailed personalized normative feedback (PNF)—Generic/other

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.


Effectiveness:star star star = Higher effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:## = Moderate

Primary Modality: Online/offsite

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:**** = 11+ studies

Potential Resources:

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.

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.

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.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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 alone

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.


Effectiveness:star star star = Higher effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online/offsite

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:*** = 7 to 10 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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.

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.

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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):

eCHECKUP TO GO (formerly, e-CHUG)

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.


Effectiveness:star star star = Higher effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:**** = 11+ studies

Potential Resources:

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

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

References:

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

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

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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:

In-person norms clarification aloneb

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.


Effectiveness:star star = Moderate effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: In-person group

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:*** = 7 to 10 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college studentsJournal 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 1999–2006Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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:

Expectancy challenge interventions (ECI)—Experiential

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.


Effectiveness:star star = Moderate effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:## = Moderate

Primary Modality: In-person group

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:*** = 7 to 10 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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

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

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

References from 2019 update
No studies identified.

Footnotes:

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

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.


Effectiveness:star star = Moderate effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Offsite

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:**** = 11+ studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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


Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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:

Generic/other

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.


Effectiveness:star star = Moderate effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: In-person group

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:**** = 11+ studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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

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

  • 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 drinkingAlcohol Research and Health 34(2):210–21, 2011.

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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

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.


Effectiveness:star star = Moderate effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:## = Moderate

Primary Modality: In-person group

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:*** = 7 to 10 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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 (contains eCHECKUP TO GO)a

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.


Effectiveness:star star = Moderate effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:** = 4 to 6 studies

Potential Resources:

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

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

References:

Footnotes:

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 exercise alonea

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


Effectiveness:star star = Moderate effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online/offsite

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:** = 4 to 6 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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 alonea

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


Effectiveness:star star = Moderate effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online/offsite

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:** = 4 to 6 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

Studies from Larimer & Cronce (2007)

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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:

Electronic/mailed personalized normative feedback (PNF)—Event-specific prevention (21st birthday cards)

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


Effectiveness:star = Lower effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online/offsite

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:*** = 7 to 10 studies

Potential Resources:

Examples of cards used by universities:

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

References:

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

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

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update
No studies identified

Footnotes:

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™ b

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.


Effectiveness:star = Lower effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:** = 4 to 6 studies

Potential Resources:

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.

References:

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

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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

alone

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.


Effectiveness:X = Not effective

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: In-person group

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:**** = 11+ studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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 processJournal 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 programJournal 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 1999–2006Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

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

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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

alone

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.


Effectiveness:X = Not effective

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: In-person group

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:*** = 7 to 10 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college studentsJournal 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 1999–2006Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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:

Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) feedback aloneb

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).


Effectiveness:X = Not effective

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: In-person individual

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:** = 4 to 6 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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:

Expectancy challenge intervention (ECI)—By proxy/didactic/discussion alone

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.


Effectiveness:X = Not effective

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: In-person group

Public Health Outreach:F = Focused

Research Amount:** = 4 to 6 studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college studentsJournal 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 1999–2006Addictive 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 expectanciesAddictive 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

References from 2019 update

No studies identified.

Footnotes:

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):

Miscellaneous

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.


Effectiveness:? = Too few studies to rate effectiveness

Cost:$$ = Mid-range

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:* = 3 or fewer studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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. 

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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 (beta 1.0 version)

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.


Effectiveness:? = Too few studies to rate effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:* = 3 or fewer studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

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

References from 2019 update

No studies identified.

Footnotes:

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):

College Drinker’s Check-up (CDCU)

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.


Effectiveness:? = Too few studies to rate effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:# = Lower

Primary Modality: Online

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:* = 3 or fewer studies

Potential Resources:

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

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

References:

Additional studies not identified in prior reviews

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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)a

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.


Effectiveness:? = Too few studies to rate effectiveness

Cost:$ = Lower

Barriers:## = Moderate

Primary Modality: Computer

Public Health Outreach:B = Broad

Research Amount:* = 3 or fewer studies

Potential Resources:

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

References:

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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.
----------


Effectiveness: = Not rated by CollegeAIM

Cost: = Not rated

Barriers: = Not rated

Primary Modality: In-person individual/offsite

Public Health Outreach: = Not rated

Research Amount: = Not rated

Potential Resources:

References:

No studies

Footnotes:

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,”
(2) Approval of three medications for alcohol use disorder by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and
(3) Recommendations in NIAAA’s Clinician’s Guide, “Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much.”

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.


Effectiveness: = Not rated by CollegeAIM

Cost: = Not rated

Barriers: = Not rated

Primary Modality: In-person individual, in-person group

Public Health Outreach: = Not rated

Research Amount: = Not rated

Potential Resources:

References:

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

References from 2019 update

Footnotes:

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,”  
(2) Approval of three medications for alcohol use disorder by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and
(3) Recommendations in NIAAA’s Clinician’s Guide, “Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much.”

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