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

GIMENEZ PAULA VICTORIA; CREMONTE MARIANA; PELTZER, RAQUEL INÉS; SALOMÓN, 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 efective among people with higher alcohol use related problems, but theevidence is mixed. We evaluated the efcacy of BI with and withoutNormative Feedback (NF) in reducing alcohol consumption amonguniversity students with diferent severity levels.Methods: 821 students from a national public university in Argentinawere randomized into BI without NF (BI), BI with NF (BI-NF) or a screening control group (CG). Students with heavy episodic drinking (HED)in the last 12 months were included, while those with dependencyindicators were excluded. Three months later they were re-assessed(n=537). The outcomes were: number of standard units (SU) consumed per occasion, drinking frequency, and HED frequency. Analyses(negative binomial Poisson and ordinal regressions) were performedin subgroups according to severity (high: AUDIT scores 7–14; low:AUDIT scores 1–6).Results: Among those with high severity, BI-RN reduced signifcantly quantity per occasion, (Waldχ2=8.51, OR=0.74, CI 95% 0.6to 0.9, p=0.004) compared with CG. BI compared with CG, reducedthe frequency of consumption (Waldχ2=6.9, OR=0.34, CI 95%0.15 to 0.76, p=0.009). There were no signifcant diferences in anyoutcome between BI and BI-RN. Among those with low severity,BI-RN compared to CG was efective to reduce quantity per occasion (Waldχ2=13.11, OR=0.7, CI 95% 0.57–0.85, p=0.001), drinking frequency (Waldχ2=13.99, OR=0.3, CI 95% 0.16–0.57, p=0.001)and HED frequency (Wald χ2=16.41, OR=0.19, CI 95% 0.08–0.42,p=0.001). BI compared to CG also reduced quantity per occasion(Waldχ2=21.98, OR=0.7, CI 95% 0.6–0.81, p=0.001), drinking frequency (Waldχ2=14.67, OR=0.34, CI 95% 0.19–0.59, p=0.001) andHED frequency (Waldχ2=54, OR=0.06, CI 95% 0.03–0.12, p=0.001).When comparing BI with BI-RN, there was a signifcant diference inHED frequency favoring BI participants (Waldχ2=7.53, OR=0.3, CI95% 0.13–0.71, p=0.006).Conclusions: High severity students beneft more from a BI-RN. However, BI is more appropriate for less severe, since this is a shorter intervention with similar results.