Personalized drinking feedback: A meta-analysis of in-person versus computer-delivered interventions.

Abstract

Objective Alcohol misuse is a significant public health concern. Personalized feedback interventions (PFIs) involve the use of personalized information about one’s drinking behaviors and can be delivered in-person or via computer. The relative efficacy of these delivery methods remains an unanswered question. The primary aim of the current meta-analysis was to identify and directly compare randomized clinical trials of in-person PFIs and computer-delivered PFIs. Method A total of 14 intervention comparisons from 13 manuscripts, of which 9 were college samples, were examined: in-person PFIs (N=1240; 49% female; 74% White) and computer-delivered PFIs (N=1201; 53% female; 73% White). Independent coders rated sample characteristics, study information, study design, intervention content, and study outcomes. Results Weighted mean effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models. At short follow-up (≤ 4 months), there were no differences between in-person PFIs and computer-delivered PFIs on any alcohol use variable or alcohol-related problems. At long follow-up (> 4 months), in-person PFIs were more effective than computer-delivered PFIs at impacting overall drinking quantity (d = .18) and drinks per week (d = .19). These effects were not moderated by sample characteristics. Conclusions For assessing alcohol outcomes at shorter follow-ups, there were no differences between delivery modality. At longer follow-ups, in-person PFIs demonstrated some advantages over computer-delivered PFIs. We encourage researchers to continue to examine direct comparisons between these delivery modalities and to further examine the efficacy of in-person PFIs at longer follow-ups.

Feasibility and Effects of Digital Interventions to Support People in Recovery From Substance Use Disorders: Systematic Review (Preprint)

“…These results are confirmed in a newly published Cochrane review by Kaner et al [19]. In a meta-analytical comparison of digital and in-person delivered intervention, Cadigan et al [20] found no difference between the two modalities on short-term effect (less than 4 months), while the in-person interventions had stronger long-term effects.…”

Randomized controlled trial of a very brief, multicomponent web-based alcohol intervention for undergraduates with a focus on protective behavioral strategies.

“…Furthermore, effects of in-person brief interventions tend to last longer than web-based (Cadigan et al, 2014; Carey et al, 2012). Thus, we would not necessarily expect this very brief web-based intervention to have effects lasting for an extended period (e.g., over 1 year).…”

Questions about the validity of the binge or heavy drinking criterion have implications for more than just treatment evaluation

“…Single consumption‐based cut‐offs also feature in guidance to the public. Personalized feedback interventions often report the frequency of a patient's heavy drinking, relative to that of their peers and some low‐risk drinking guidelines contain advice about the number of drinks that can be consumed on a single occasion to minimize the risk of acute alcohol‐related harm . The danger of presenting an oversimplified definition of drinking that is likely to cause harm, and encouraging individuals to comply, is that those who are at risk of harm after consuming only small amounts of alcohol interpret all consumption up to the threshold as safe.…”