Alcohol Risk-Reduction Skills Training in a National Fraternity: A Randomized Intervention Trial With Longitudinal Intent-to-Treat Analysis

Abstract

Objective: The potential effectiveness of two group-administered social-skills training interventions for reducing high-risk drinking behavior was evaluated through a prospective randomized intervention trial with 3,406 members of a national college fraternity. Method: Ninety eight of 99 chapters of a national fraternity were randomly assigned, within three strata, to receive (1) a 3-hour baseline intervention, (2) the same baseline intervention plus two booster sessions, or (3) assessments only. The current article emphasizes a rigorous intent-to-treat analysis model that compares outcomes among members assigned to receive study interventions (vs assessment-only sites) regardless of whether they actually did receive them; it also includes individuals at intervention sites even if they did not participate. This model allows us to address a social policy issue regarding the effect that introducing such an intervention may have in changing the high-risk normative drink-

A scoping review of risk behaviour interventions in young men

“…Of the 100 included studies, 46 included young male participants only with 18 (18% of total studies and 39.1% of young adult male only studies) [52–54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64–73, 76] for physical inactivity, 14 (14% of total studies and 30.4% of young adult male only studies) for unsafe sexual behaviour [51, 80, 82, 85–91, 94, 96–98], 4 (4% of total studies and 8.7% of young adult male only studies) for alcohol use [126–129], 2 (2% of total studies and 4.3% of young adult male only studies) for unsafe vehicle driving [104, 105] 1 (1% of total studies and 2.2% of young adult male only studies) for tobacco smoking [110], 1 (1% of total studies and 2.2% of young adult male only studies) for poor diet [103], and 1 (1% of total studies and 2.2% of young adult male only studies) for tanning/sun exposure [115]. Also 5 (5% of total studies and 10.9% of young adult male only studies) of the studies with only young adult male participants targeted multiple risk behaviours [116, 119, 122, 124, 125].…”

“…The interventions were conducted across several continents, with most conducted in North America (n = 63, 63%) [45, 51, 57–59, 62, 63, 68, 73–75, 77, 78, 80, 82, 85–94, 96, 97, 99–101, 103, 106, 109, 111–113, 115, 117, 118, 121–123, 125, 126, 129–147] (the majority of these were conducted in the USA n = 61). The remaining interventions were carried out in Europe (n = 18, 18%) [52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 61, 70, 81, 95, 98, 102, 104, 110, 116, 119, 127, 128, 148], Australasia (n = 8, 8%) [54, 65, 66, 105, 108, 120, 124, 149], Asia (n = 6, 6%) [64, 67, 71, 72, 107, 114], South America (n = 3, 3%) [69, 79, 83], Africa (n = 1, 1%) [76] and one intervention (1%) was implemented in multiple countries across two continents (USA, Ecuador, Peru and Brazil) [84].…”

“…Of the 100 included studies there were 62 (62%) randomized controlled trials [51–57, 59, 62–73, 75, 77, 78, 82, 84–86, 90, 92, 93, 96, 103, 105, 108, 109, 112, 113, 116, 118–120, 123–125, 127–131, 133–135, 138–140, 143–149], 16 (16%) case series [57, 60, 61, 74, 76, 80, 91, 94, 99–101, 110, 115, 117, 121, 136], 9 (9%) non-randomized controlled trials [87, 95, 98, 102, 104, 107, 122, 137, 141], 7 (7%) cluster randomized controlled trials [79, 81, 83, 111, 126, 132, 142], 4 (4%) cluster controlled studies [45, 88, 97, 114] and 2 (2%) interrupted time series [89, 106]. The number of papers for each study design and reported risk behaviour is provided in Table 3.…”

“…Interventions were implemented across a wide variety of settings with the most common being university/college settings (n = 46, 46%) [53–59, 62–66, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78, 93, 95, 96, 98–101, 103, 105, 108, 109, 112, 115, 117, 118, 121, 123–126, 129, 130, 134, 136, 137, 141, 144, 146, 147]. Other prevalent settings included military/army (n = 11, 11%) [52, 60, 61, 69, 71, 72, 104, 110, 119, 127, 128] and internet (n = 8, 8%) [45, 85, 92, 113, 132, 139, 148, 149].…”

“…In addition, interventions regularly incorporated multiple professionals for delivery (n = 9, 9%) [75, 80, 81, 83, 87–89, 125, 144]. There were 20 (20%) studies that failed to state the profession [51, 53, 55, 64–67, 69, 70, 76, 79, 84, 102, 108, 114, 115, 124, 126, 130, 135] and 12 (12%) of the studies were self-directed [45, 52, 85, 91, 106, 113, 120, 132, 140, 142, 148, 149]. A summary of the risk behaviours and by whom the intervention was delivered by is available in Table 7.…”