↓ Skip to main content

The Utility of a Brief Web-Based Prevention Intervention as a Universal Approach for Risky Alcohol Use in College Students: Evidence of Moderation by Family History

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
The Utility of a Brief Web-Based Prevention Intervention as a Universal Approach for Risky Alcohol Use in College Students: Evidence of Moderation by Family History
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00747
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoe E. Neale, Jessica E. Salvatore, Megan E. Cooke, Jeanne E. Savage, Fazil Aliev, Kristen K. Donovan, Linda C. Hancock, Danielle M. Dick

Abstract

Background: Alcohol use on college campuses is prevalent and contributes to problems that affect the health, emotional wellbeing, and academic success of college students. Risk factors, such as family history of alcohol problems, predict future alcohol problems, but less is known about their potential impact on intervention effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of an intervention implemented in a non-randomized sample of drinking and non-drinking college freshmen. Methods: Freshmen college students recruited for the intervention study (n = 153) completed a web-adaptation of the Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) at the start of spring semester. We compared their 30-days post-intervention alcohol initiation, number of drinking days (DAYS), drinks per occasion (DRINKS), maximum drinks in 24 h (MAX24) and alcohol use disorder symptoms (AUDsx) to 151 comparison participants retrospectively matched on demographics and baseline alcohol use behaviors. We also tested baseline DRINKS, DAYS, AUDsx, MAX24, and parental family history (PFH) of alcohol problems as moderators of the effect of the intervention. Results: At follow-up, intervention participants had lower rates of AUDsx than comparison participants, especially among baseline drinkers. Among participants drinking 3+ days/month at baseline, intervention participants showed fewer DAYS at follow-up than the comparison group participants. BASICS was also associated with a decreased likelihood of initiation among baseline non-drinkers. PFH significantly interacted with treatment group, with positive PFH intervention participants reporting significantly fewer AUDsx at follow-up compared to positive PFH comparison participants. We found no evidence for an effect of the intervention on DRINKS or MAX24 in our analyses. Conclusions: Results suggest some indication that novel groups, such as non-drinkers, regular drinkers, and PFH positive students may experience benefits from BASICS. Although conclusions were limited by lack of randomization and short follow-up period, PFH positive and low to moderate drinking groups represent viable targets for future randomized studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 17 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,275,790
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,540
of 31,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,165
of 330,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#420
of 658 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 330,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 658 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.