ÜBERMAD

GoalsPaper

Feedback cut students' drinking, but not their alcohol problems

HelpedThe short version

A one-hour feedback talk and a house session helped members drink less than usual care did.

Two young men on a sofa; one rests his palm over his glass while the other holds out a jug he is turning down.
120
first-year fraternity members
Randomised
groups picked at random
Self-rated
people rated themselves
3 tools
tested

The study

  1. Who took part

    The study began with 159 first-year fraternity members. 120 of them were still in the study one year later. They came from 12 fraternities at one large university on the US West Coast. On average they were about 19.

  2. What they did

    Six fraternities had a one-hour talk on each member's drinking. They also had a one-hour group session. Six other fraternities got usual care, one lecture on alcohol.

  3. What happened

    Members in feedback fraternities fell from about 15 drinks a week to about 12. Members in usual-care fraternities rose from about 16 to about 18. Alcohol problems did not change differently between the two groups. Peer interviewers cut peak blood alcohol more than staff did, but those groups started at different levels.

What the study found

  1. HelpedGoals

    A one-hour feedback talk and a house session helped members drink less than usual care did.

    Randomised trial of 120 first-year fraternity members · vs fraternities that got usual care, a lecture on alcohol · they rated themselves · ⚠ whole groups were assigned, not people; only counted people who finished

  2. HelpedGoals

    The same feedback also lowered typical peak blood alcohol more than usual care did.

    Randomised trial of 120 first-year fraternity members · vs fraternities that got usual care, a lecture on alcohol · they rated themselves · ⚠ whole groups were assigned, not people; only counted people who finished

  3. No differenceOther outcomes

    The feedback did not cut alcohol problems or signs of dependence more than usual care did.

    Randomised trial of 120 first-year fraternity members · vs fraternities that got usual care, a lecture on alcohol · they rated themselves · ⚠ whole groups were assigned, not people; only counted people who finished

How solid is this?

  • Groups picked at random
  • People rated themselves
  • Whole groups were assigned, not people
  • Only counted people who finished

Source

Evaluating a Brief Alcohol Intervention with Fraternities (2001)

More on goals

See all