Efficacy of Brief Intervention among university students with different levels of severity of alcohol use related problems

GIMENEZ, PAULA VICTORIA; CREMONTE MARIANA; PELTZER, RAQUEL; SALOMON, TOMÁS; CONDE, KARINA

Goa

Conferencia; 17TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL INEBRIA CONFERENCE; 2021

International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drugs (INEBRIA)

Background: Brief Intervention (BI) is often considered less effective among people with higheralcohol use related problems, but the evidence is mixed. We evaluated the efficacy of BI with andwithout Normative Feedback (NF) in reducing alcohol consumption among university students withdifferent severity levels. Methods: 821 students from a national public university in Argentina were randomized into BIwithout NF (BI), BI with NF (BI-NF) or a screening control group (CG). Students with heavy episodicdrinking (HED) in the last 12 months were included, while those with dependency indicators wereexcluded. Three months later they were re-assessed (n=537). The outcomes were: number of standardunits (SU) consumed per occasion, drinking frequency, and HED frequency. Analyses (negativebinomial Poisson and ordinal regressions) were performed in subgroups according to severity (high: AUDIT scores 7-14; low: AUDIT scores 1-6). Results: Among those with high severity, BI-RN reduced significantly quantity per occasion,(Waldχ2=8.51,OR=.74, CI95% .6 to .9, p=.004) compared with CG. BI compared with CG, reduced thefrequency of consumption (Waldχ2=6.9, OR=.34, CI95% .15 to .76, p=.009). There were nosignificant differences in any outcome between BI and BI-RN.Among those with low severity, BI-RN compared to CG was effective to reduce quantity per occasion (Waldχ2=13.11, OR=.7, CI95% .57-.85, p=.001), drinking frequency (Waldχ2=13.99, OR=.3,CI95% .16-.57, p=.001) and HED frequency (Wald χ2=16.41, OR=.19, CI95% .08-.42, p=.001). BI compared to CG also reduced quantity per occasion (Waldχ2=21.98, OR=.7, CI95% .6-.81, p=.001), drinking frequency (Waldχ2=14.67, OR=.34, CI95% .19-.59, p=.001) andHED frequency (Waldχ2=54, OR=.06, CI95% .03-.12, p=.001). When comparing BI with BI-RN, there was a significant difference in HED frequency favoring BI participants (Waldχ2=7.53, OR=.3, CI95% .13-.71, p=.006). Conclusions: High severity students benefit more from a BI-RN. However, BI is more appropriate forless severe, since this is a shorter intervention with similar results.