vix.ing · top · new · best · stats

Alcohol interventions for mandated college students: A meta-analytic review.

2016/04/21 by Kate B. Carey, Lori A. J. Scott-Sheldon, Lori A. J. Scott‐Sheldon +3 · 105 citations
Medicine · Psychology · #Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects #Alcohol abuse #Clinical psychology #Environmental health #Gambling Behavior and Treatments #Injury prevention #Intervention (counseling) #MEDLINE #Medicine #Meta-analysis #Poison control #PsycINFO #Psychiatry #Psychological intervention #Psychology #Randomized controlled trial #Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

paper · doi:10.1037/a0040275

published in Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 84(7), 619-632 (American Psychological Association)

openalex publication_date 2016/04/21 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: When college students violate campus alcohol policies, they typically receive disciplinary sanctions that include alcohol education or counseling. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of these "mandated interventions" to prevent future alcohol misuse. METHOD: Studies were included if they evaluated an individual- or group-level intervention, sampled students mandated to an alcohol program, used a pretest-posttest design, and assessed alcohol use as an outcome. Thirty-one studies with 68 separate interventions (N = 8,621 participants; 35% women; 85% White) were coded by independent raters with respect to sample, design, methodological features, and intervention content; the raters also calculated weighted mean effect sizes, using random-effects models. A priori predictors were examined to explain variability in effect sizes. RESULTS: In the 5 studies that used assessment-only control groups, mandated students reported significantly less drinking relative to controls (between-groups contrasts), d+ ranged from 0.13-0.20 for quantity and intoxication outcomes. In the 31 studies that provided within-group contrasts, significant effects were observed for all outcomes in the short-term (i.e., ≤ 3 months postintervention), with d+ ranging from 0.14-0.27; however, fewer significant effects appeared at longer follow-ups. Four commercially available intervention protocols (i.e., BASICS, e-CHUG, Alcohol 101, and Alcohol Skills Training Program) were associated with risk reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Providing mandated interventions to students who violate campus alcohol policies is an effective short-term risk reduction strategy. Continued research is needed to maintain initial gains, identify the most useful intervention components, and determine the cost-effectiveness of delivery modes. (PsycINFO Database Record

Citations

Cited by

Related