Examining Emailed Feedback as Boosters After a College Drinking Intervention Among Fraternities and Sororities: Rationale and Protocol for a Remote Controlled Trial (Project Greek)

Abby L Braitman, Jennifer L Shipley, Megan Strowger, Rachel Ayala Guzman, Alina Whiteside, Adrian J Bravo, Kate B Carey, Abby L Braitman, Jennifer L Shipley, Megan Strowger, Rachel Ayala Guzman, Alina Whiteside, Adrian J Bravo, Kate B Carey

Abstract

Background: College students involved in Greek life (ie, members of fraternities and sororities) tend to engage in more high-risk alcohol use and experience more negative consequences than those not involved in Greek life. Web-based alcohol interventions, such as Alcohol eCHECKUP TO GO, have been successful in reducing alcohol use and consequences among the general college student population, but interventions targeting alcohol reduction among those involved in Greek life have had limited success. Booster emails including personalized feedback regarding descriptive norms and protective behavioral strategies have shown potential in increasing the effectiveness of web-based interventions among college drinkers. Studies are needed to determine the efficacy of these boosters among those involved in Greek life.

Objective: The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of booster emails sent to Greek life students who complete Alcohol eCHECKUP TO GO. Specifically, we expect that participants who receive the booster emails will reduce their alcohol consumption and related problems (primary aim 1), reduce perceived peer drinking, and increase the number of protective behavioral strategies they use over time (primary aim 2) relative to those who do not receive boosters. Contingent upon finding the emailed booster efficacious and sufficient enrollment of members from each organization, an exploratory aim is to examine social mechanisms of change (ie, through selection vs socialization).

Methods: This study is a remote, controlled intervention trial following participants for up to 6 months. Participants must be aged at least 18 years, undergraduate students, and members of a participating fraternity or sorority. Eligible participants complete a web-based baseline survey to assess their alcohol consumption behaviors and beliefs, including norms and protective behavioral strategies, and information about their social networks. After completing the baseline survey, they participate in the web-based intervention. Follow-up surveys are sent 1, 3, and 6 months after the intervention. Those in the booster condition also receive emails containing personalized feedback at 2 weeks and 14 weeks after the intervention. Latent growth models and R-Simulation Investigation for Empirical Network Analysis will be used to analyze the data.

Results: As of September 2022, we have enrolled 18 participants from 2 fraternities and 2 sororities, and they have completed the baseline survey. Overall, 72% (13/18) of participants have completed the 1-month follow-up. Enrollment will continue through December 2022.

Conclusions: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of personalized feedback booster emails sent after an alcohol intervention among members of college Greek life. A secondary, exploratory aim is to provide information about social mechanisms of change (if possible). The current methodology targets whole network recruitment, with chapter presidents serving as gatekeepers and facilitators. Unique challenges of recruiting whole networks and working with campus administrators are discussed.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05107284; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT05107284.

International registered report identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/42535.

Keywords: boosters; college drinking; fraternities; sororities; web-based intervention.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Abby L Braitman, Jennifer L Shipley, Megan Strowger, Rachel Ayala Guzman, Alina Whiteside, Adrian J Bravo, Kate B Carey. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 28.10.2022.

References

    1. Bolin RM, Pate M, McClintock J. The impact of alcohol and marijuana use on academic achievement among college students. Soc Sci J. 2017;54(4):430–7. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2017.08.003.
    1. Conway JM, DiPlacido J. The indirect effect of alcohol use on GPA in first-semester college students: the mediating role of academic effort. J Coll Stud Ret. 2015 Mar 16;17(3):303–18. doi: 10.1177/1521025115575705.
    1. Hingson R, Zha W, Smyth D. Magnitude and trends in heavy episodic drinking, alcohol-impaired driving, and alcohol-related mortality and overdose hospitalizations among emerging adults of college ages 18-24 in the United States, 1998-2014. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2017 Jul;78(4):540–8. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.540.
    1. Patrick ME, Terry-McElrath YM, Evans-Polce RJ, Schulenberg JE. Negative alcohol-related consequences experienced by young adults in the past 12 months: differences by college attendance, living situation, binge drinking, and sex. Addict Behav. 2020 Jun;105:106320. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106320. S0306-4603(19)30979-7
    1. Table 2.28B: Binge Alcohol Use in Past Month: Among People Aged 12 or Older; by Age Group and Demographic Characteristics, Percentages, 2019 and 2020. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) 2019. [2022-10-07]. .
    1. Testa M, Hoffman JH. Naturally occurring changes in women's drinking from high school to college and implications for sexual victimization. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012 Jan;73(1):26–33. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.26.
    1. Capone C, Wood MD, Borsari B, Laird RD. Fraternity and sorority involvement, social influences, and alcohol use among college students: a prospective examination. Psychol Addict Behav. 2007 Sep;21(3):316–27. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.3.316. 2007-13102-005
    1. Glassman TJ, Dodd VJ, Sheu JJ, Rienzo BA, Wagenaar AC. Extreme ritualistic alcohol consumption among college students on game day. J Am Coll Health. 2010;58(5):413–23. doi: 10.1080/07448480903540473.373456R57143357R
    1. Huchting K, Lac A, LaBrie JW. An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to sorority alcohol consumption. Addict Behav. 2008 Apr;33(4):538–51. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.11.002. S0306-4603(07)00304-8
    1. Scott-Sheldon LA, Carey KB, Carey MP. Health behavior and college students: does Greek affiliation matter? J Behav Med. 2008 Feb;31(1):61–70. doi: 10.1007/s10865-007-9136-1.
    1. Ragsdale K, Porter JR, Mathews R, White A, Gore-Felton C, McGarvey EL. “Liquor before beer, you're in the clear”: binge drinking and other risk behaviours among fraternity/sorority members and their non-Greek peers. J Subst Use. 2012;17(4):323–39. doi: 10.3109/14659891.2011.583312.
    1. Soule EK, Barnett TE, Moorhouse MD. Protective behavioral strategies and negative alcohol-related consequences among US college fraternity and sorority members. J Subst Use. 2015;20(1):16–21. doi: 10.3109/14659891.2013.858783.
    1. Wechsler H, Kuh G, Davenport AE. Fraternities, sororities and binge drinking: results from a national study of American colleges. NASPA J. 2009 Oct 20;46(3):395–416. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.5017.
    1. Sidani JE, Shensa A, Primack BA. Substance and hookah use and living arrangement among fraternity and sorority members at US colleges and universities. J Community Health. 2013 Apr;38(2):238–45. doi: 10.1007/s10900-012-9605-5.
    1. Caudill BD, Crosse SB, Campbell B, Howard J, Luckey B, Blane HT. High-risk drinking among college fraternity members: a national perspective. J Am Coll Health. 2006;55(3):141–55. doi: 10.3200/JACH.55.3.141-155.
    1. Rodriguez LM, Young CM, Tomkins MM, DiBello AM, Krieger H, Neighbors C. Friends in low places: the impact of locations and companions on 21st birthday drinking. Addict Behav. 2016 Jan;52:52–7. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.08.009. S0306-4603(15)30009-5
    1. Phua J. The influence of peer norms and popularity on smoking and drinking behavior among college fraternity members: a social network analysis. Soc Influ. 2011 Jul;6(3):153–68. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2011.584445.
    1. Park A, Sher KJ, Krull JL. Risky drinking in college changes as fraternity/sorority affiliation changes: a person-environment perspective. Psychol Addict Behav. 2008 Jun;22(2):219–29. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.22.2.219. 2008-06772-007
    1. Park A, Sher KJ, Krull JL. Selection and socialization of risky drinking during the college transition: the importance of microenvironments associated with specific living units. Psychol Addict Behav. 2009 Sep;23(3):404–14. doi: 10.1037/a0016293. 2009-14441-002
    1. Scott-Sheldon LA, Carey KB, Kaiser TS, Knight JM, Carey MP. Alcohol interventions for Greek letter organizations: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 1987 to 2014. Health Psychol. 2016 May 16;35(7):670–84. doi: 10.1037/hea0000357. 2016-23897-001
    1. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Bethesda, MD, USA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2019. [2022-10-07]. CollegeAIM Alcohol Intervention Matrix: Individual-Level Strategies. .
    1. Alfonso J. The role of social norms in personalized alcohol feedback: a dismantling study with emerging adults. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 2015 Jun 25;24(6):379–86. doi: 10.1080/1067828x.2013.872064.
    1. Doumas DM, Andersen LL. Reducing alcohol use in first-year university students: evaluation of a Web-based personalized feedback program. J Coll Couns. 2009;12(1):18–32. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2009.tb00037.x.
    1. Doumas DM, Kane CM, Navarro TB, Roman J. Decreasing heavy drinking in first-year students: evaluation of a web-based personalized feedback program administered during orientation. J Coll Couns. 2011;14(1):5–20. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2011.tb00060.x.
    1. Doumas DM, Nelson K, DeYoung A, Renteria CC. Alcohol-related consequences among first-year university students: effectiveness of a web-based personalized feedback program. J Coll Couns. 2014 Jul 01;17(2):150–62. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2014.00054.x.
    1. Hustad JT, Barnett NP, Borsari B, Jackson KM. Web-based alcohol prevention for incoming college students: a randomized controlled trial. Addict Behav. 2010 Mar;35(3):183–9. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.10.012. S0306-4603(09)00277-9
    1. Lane DJ, Lindemann DF, Schmidt JA. A comparison of computer-assisted and self-management programs for reducing alcohol use among students in first year experience courses. J Drug Educ. 2012;42(2):119–35. doi: 10.2190/DE.42.2.a.
    1. Walters ST, Vader AM, Harris TR. A controlled trial of web-based feedback for heavy drinking college students. Prev Sci. 2007 Mar;8(1):83–8. doi: 10.1007/s11121-006-0059-9.
    1. Braitman AL, Strowger M, Lau-Barraco C, Shipley JL, Kelley ML, Carey KB. Examining the added value of harm reduction strategies to emailed boosters to extend the effects of online interventions for college drinkers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2022 Sep;36(6):635–47. doi: 10.1037/adb0000755.2021-48423-001
    1. Ganz T, Braun M, Laging M, Schermelleh-Engel K, Michalak J, Heidenreich T. Effects of a stand-alone web-based electronic screening and brief intervention targeting alcohol use in university students of legal drinking age: a randomized controlled trial. Addict Behav. 2018 Feb;77:81–8. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.09.017.S0306-4603(17)30363-5
    1. Chavez K, Palfai TP. Reducing heavy episodic drinking among college students using a combined web and interactive text messaging intervention. Alcohol Treat Q. 2021;39(1):82–95. doi: 10.1080/07347324.2020.1784067.
    1. Fazzino TL, Rose GL, Helzer JE. An experimental test of assessment reactivity within a web-based brief alcohol intervention study for college students. Addict Behav. 2016 Jan;52:66–74. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.08.011. S0306-4603(15)30011-3
    1. Jouriles EN, Brown AS, Rosenfield D, McDonald R, Croft K, Leahy MM, Walters ST. Improving the effectiveness of computer-delivered personalized drinking feedback interventions for college students. Psychol Addict Behav. 2010 Dec;24(4):592–9. doi: 10.1037/a0020830.2010-26520-005
    1. Murphy JG, Dennhardt AA, Skidmore JR, Martens MP, McDevitt-Murphy ME. Computerized versus motivational interviewing alcohol interventions: impact on discrepancy, motivation, and drinking. Psychol Addict Behav. 2010 Dec;24(4):628–39. doi: 10.1037/a0021347. 2010-26520-007
    1. Murphy JG, Dennhardt AA, Yurasek AM, Skidmore JR, Martens MP, MacKillop J, McDevitt-Murphy ME. Behavioral economic predictors of brief alcohol intervention outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Dec;83(6):1033–43. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000032. 2015-30579-001
    1. Walters ST, Vader AM, Harris TR, Field CA, Jouriles EN. Dismantling motivational interviewing and feedback for college drinkers: a randomized clinical trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Feb;77(1):64–73. doi: 10.1037/a0014472. 2009-00563-015
    1. Tahaney KD, Palfai TP. Text messaging as an adjunct to a web-based intervention for college student alcohol use: a preliminary study. Addict Behav. 2017 Oct;73:63–6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.04.018.S0306-4603(17)30165-X
    1. Welter TL, Rossmann PD, Hines HE. A health risk assessment and early alcohol intervention program for non-mandated students. J Am Coll Health. 2022 Jul;70(5):1508–17. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2020.1808661.
    1. Alfonso J, Hall TV, Dunn ME. Feedback-based alcohol interventions for mandated students: an effectiveness study of three modalities. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2013;20(5):411–23. doi: 10.1002/cpp.1786.
    1. Bernstein MH, Baird GL, Yusufov M, Mastroleo NR, Carey KB, Graney DD, Wood MD. A novel approach for streamlining delivery of brief motivational interventions to mandated college students: using group and individual sessions matched to level of risk. Subst Use Misuse. 2017 Dec 06;52(14):1883–91. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2017.1318148.
    1. Doumas DM, Workman CR, Navarro A, Smith D. Evaluation of web-based and counselor-delivered feedback interventions for mandated students. J Addict Offender Couns. 2011;32(1-2):16–28. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1874.2011.tb00204.x.
    1. Doumas DM, Workman C, Smith D, Navarro A. Reducing high-risk drinking in mandated college students: evaluation of two personalized normative feedback interventions. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2011 Jun;40(4):376–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2010.12.006.S0740-5472(11)00007-9
    1. Braitman AL, Henson JM. Personalized boosters for a computerized intervention targeting college drinking: the influence of protective behavioral strategies. J Am Coll Health. 2016 Oct;64(7):509–19. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2016.1185725.
    1. Müller-Riemenschneider F, Reinhold T, Nocon M, Willich SN. Long-term effectiveness of interventions promoting physical activity: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2008 Oct;47(4):354–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.07.006.S0091-7435(08)00352-6
    1. Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Henry D, Schoeny M. The benefits of booster interventions: evidence from a family-focused prevention program. Prev Sci. 2009 Dec;10(4):287–97. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0139-8.
    1. Longabaugh R, Woolard RE, Nirenberg TD, Minugh AP, Becker B, Clifford PR, Carty K, Licsw. Sparadeo F, Gogineni A. Evaluating the effects of a brief motivational intervention for injured drinkers in the emergency department. J Stud Alcohol. 2001 Nov;62(6):806–16. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2001.62.806.
    1. Carey KB, Scott-Sheldon LA, Elliott JC, Garey L, Carey MP. Face-to-face versus computer-delivered alcohol interventions for college drinkers: a meta-analytic review, 1998 to 2010. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Dec;32(8):690–703. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.08.001. S0272-7358(12)00114-6
    1. Neighbors C, Lewis MA, Atkins DC, Jensen MM, Walter T, Fossos N, Lee CM, Larimer ME. Efficacy of web-based personalized normative feedback: a two-year randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Dec;78(6):898–911. doi: 10.1037/a0020766. 2010-19653-001
    1. Braitman AL, Lau-Barraco C. Personalized boosters after a computerized intervention targeting college drinking: a randomized controlled trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018 Sep;42(9):1735–47. doi: 10.1111/acer.13815.
    1. Carey KB, Walsh JL, Merrill JE, Lust SA, Reid AE, Scott-Sheldon LA, Kalichman SC, Carey MP. Using e-mail boosters to maintain change after brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018 Sep;86(9):787–98. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000339. 2018-41322-007
    1. Lewis MA, Neighbors C. Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms education: a review of the research on personalized normative feedback. J Am Coll Health. 2006;54(4):213–8. doi: 10.3200/JACH.54.4.213-218.
    1. Peterson R, Kramer MP, Pinto D, De Leon AN, Leary AV, Marin AA, Cora JL, Dvorak RD. A comprehensive review of measures of protective behavioral strategies across various risk factors and associated PBS-related interventions. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jun;29(3):236–50. doi: 10.1037/pha0000498.2021-63348-003
    1. Braitman AL, Lau-Barraco C. Descriptive norms but not harm reduction strategies as a mediator of personalized boosters after a computerized college drinking intervention. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2020 Jan;44(1):284–96. doi: 10.1111/acer.14248.
    1. Barry A, Madson M, Moorer K, Christman K. Predicting use of protective behavioral strategies: does fraternity/sorority affiliation matter? J Stud Aff Res Pract. 2016 Jun 24;53(3):294–304. doi: 10.1080/19496591.2016.1165107.
    1. Hennessy EA, Tanner-Smith EE, Mavridis D, Grant SP. Comparative effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions for college students: results from a network meta-analysis. Prev Sci. 2019 Jul;20(5):715–40. doi: 10.1007/s11121-018-0960-z. 10.1007/s11121-018-0960-z
    1. Dotson KB, Dunn ME, Bowers CA. Stand-alone personalized normative feedback for college student drinkers: a meta-analytic review, 2004 to 2014. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 8;10(10):e0139518. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139518. PONE-D-15-26318
    1. Collins RL, Parks GA, Marlatt GA. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: the effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1985 Apr;53(2):189–200. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.53.2.189.
    1. Kahler CW, Strong DR, Read JP. Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: the brief young adult alcohol consequences questionnaire. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2005 Jul;29(7):1180–9. doi: 10.1097/01.alc.0000171940.95813.a5.00000374-200507000-00007
    1. Martin JL, Colvin KF, Madson MB, Zamboanga BL, Pazienza R. Optimal assessment of protective behavioral strategies among college drinkers: an item response theory analysis. Psychol Assess. 2020 Apr;32(4):394–406. doi: 10.1037/pas0000799. 2020-05032-001
    1. Carey KB, Henson JM, Carey MP, Maisto SA. Perceived norms mediate effects of a brief motivational intervention for sanctioned college drinkers. Clin Psychol (New York) 2010 Mar;17(1):58–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01194.x.
    1. DeMartini KS, Prince MA, Carey KB. Identification of trajectories of social network composition change and the relationship to alcohol consumption and norms. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Sep 01;132(1-2):309–15. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.020. S0376-8716(13)00069-0
    1. Zywiak W, Longabaugh R. The Brief Important People Interview Manual. Providence, RI, USA: Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies; 2002.
    1. Fromme K, Stroot EA, Kaplan D. Comprehensive effects of alcohol: development and psychometric assessment of a new expectancy questionnaire. Psychol Assess. 1993 Mar;5(1):19–26. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.5.1.19.
    1. Cooper ML. Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment. 1994 Jun;6(2):117–28. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.2.117.
    1. Osberg TM, Atkins L, Buchholz L, Shirshova V, Swiantek A, Whitley J, Hartman S, Oquendo N. Development and validation of the College Life Alcohol Salience Scale: a measure of beliefs about the role of alcohol in college life. Psychol Addict Behav. 2010 Mar;24(1):1–12. doi: 10.1037/a0018197.2010-05354-001
    1. Pearson MR, Kholodkov T, Gray MJ, Marijuana Outcomes Study Team Perceived Importance of Marijuana to the College Experience Scale (PIMCES): initial development and validation. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2017 Mar;78(2):319–24. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.319.
    1. Andresen EM, Malmgren JA, Carter WB, Patrick DL. Screening for depression in well older adults: evaluation of a short form of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) Am J Prev Med. 1994;10(2):77–84. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(18)30622-6.
    1. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.166/10/1092
    1. Wickrama KA, Ralston PA, O’Neal CW, Ilich JZ, Harris CM, Coccia C, Young-Clark I, Lemacks J. Linking life dissatisfaction to health behaviors of older African Americans through psychological competency and vulnerability. Res Aging. 2012 Jun 13;35(5):591–611. doi: 10.1177/0164027512449473.
    1. Oppenheimer DM, Meyvis T, Davidenko N. Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009 Jul;45(4):867–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009.
    1. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. Version 8.4. 1998-2019. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Muthén & Muthén; 2019.
    1. Ripley R, Snijders TA, Boda Z, Vörös A, Preciado P. Manual for SIENA. Version 4.0. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics; 2017.
    1. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002 Oct;9(4):599–620. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8.
    1. Scott-Sheldon LA, Carey KB, Elliott JC, Garey L, Carey MP. Efficacy of alcohol interventions for first-year college students: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Apr;82(2):177–88. doi: 10.1037/a0035192. 2014-01441-001

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe