↓ Skip to main content

Social norms information for alcohol misuse in university and college students

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
247 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Social norms information for alcohol misuse in university and college students
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006748.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R Foxcroft, Maria Teresa Moreira, Nerissa ML Almeida Santimano, Lesley A Smith

Abstract

Drinking is influenced by youth perceptions of how their peers drink. These perceptions are often incorrect, overestimating peer drinking norms. If inaccurate perceptions can be corrected, young people may drink less. To determine whether social norms interventions reduce alcohol-related negative consequences, alcohol misuse or alcohol consumption when compared with a control (ranging from assessment only/no intervention to other educational or psychosocial interventions) among university and college students. The following electronic databases were searched up to July 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO. The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) only to March 2008. Reference lists of included studies and review articles were manually searched. No restriction based on language or date was applied. Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials that compared a social normative intervention versus no intervention, alcohol education leaflet or other 'non-normative feedback' alcohol intervention and reported on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related problems in university or college students. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Each outcome was analysed by mode of delivery: mailed normative feedback (MF); web/computer normative feedback (WF); individual face-to-face normative feedback (IFF); group face-to-face normative feedback (GFF); and normative marketing campaign (MC). A total of 70 studies (44,958 participants) were included in the review, and 63 studies (42,784 participants) in the meta-analyses. Overall, the risk of bias assessment showed that these studies provided moderate or low quality evidence.Outcomes at four or more months post-intervention were of particular interest to assess when effects were sustained beyond the immediate short term. We have reported pooled effects across delivery modes only for those analyses for which heterogeneity across delivery modes is not substantial (I(2) < 50%).Alcohol-related problems at four or more months: IFF standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.04 (participants = 2327; studies = 11; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 1.28 points in the 69-point alcohol problems scale score. No effects were found for WF or MF.Binge drinking at four or more months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02 (participants = 11,292; studies = 16; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to 2.7% fewer binge drinkers if 30-day prevalence is 43.9%.Drinking quantity at four or more months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04 (participants = 21,169; studies = 32; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a reduction of 0.9 drinks consumed each week, from a baseline of 13.7 drinks per week.Drinking frequency at four or more months: WF SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.04 (participants = 9929; studies = 10; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.17 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk; IFF SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.10 (participants = 1464; studies = 8; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.32 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk. No effects were found for GFF or MC.Estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at four or more months: peak BAC results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00 (participants = 7198; studies = 11; low quality evidence), equivalent to a reduction in peak BAC from an average of 0.144% to 0.135%. No effects were found for typical BAC with IFF. The results of this review indicate that no substantive meaningful benefits are associated with social norms interventions for prevention of alcohol misuse among college/university students. Although some significant effects were found, we interpret the effect sizes as too small, given the measurement scales used in the studies included in this review, to be of relevance for policy or practice. Moreover, the significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, heterogeneity was a problem in some analyses and bias cannot be discounted as a potential cause of these findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 242 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 19%
Researcher 46 19%
Student > Master 45 18%
Student > Bachelor 33 13%
Unspecified 28 11%
Other 48 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 26%
Psychology 57 23%
Unspecified 42 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 11%
Social Sciences 25 10%
Other 33 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2019.
All research outputs
#254,367
of 13,500,278 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#651
of 10,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,062
of 362,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.