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

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

Congreso; 17th Annual International INEBRIA Conference; 2021

Background: Brief Intervention (BI) is often considered less efective among people with higher alcohol use related problems, but the evidence is mixed. We evaluated the efcacy of BI with and without Normative Feedback (NF) in reducing alcohol consumption among university students with diferent severity levels. Methods: 821 students from a national public university in Argentina were 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 dependency indicators 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 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 signifcantly quantity per occasion, (Waldχ2=8.51, OR=0.74, CI 95% 0.6 to 0.9, p=0.004) compared with CG. BI compared with CG, reduced the 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 any outcome 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) and HED 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 in HED frequency favoring BI participants (Waldχ2=7.53, OR=0.3, CI 95% 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.