Testing an Online, Theory-Based Intervention to Reduce Pre-drinking Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol-Related Harm in Undergraduates: a Randomized Controlled Trial
The present study tested the efficacy of a theory-based online intervention comprising motivational (autonomy support) and volitional (implementation intention) components to reduce pre-drinking alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm.
Undergraduate students (N = 202) completed self-report measures of constructs from psychological theories, pre-drinking alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related harm at baseline and were randomly assigned to one of four intervention conditions in a 2 (autonomy support: present/absent) × 2 (implementation intention: present/absent) design. Participants completed follow-up measures of all variables at 4 weeks post-intervention. All participants received national guidelines on alcohol consumption and an e-mail summary of intervention content at its conclusion. Participants also received weekly SMS messages in the 4-week post-intervention period restating content relevant to their intervention condition.
Neither statistically significant main effect for either the autonomy support or implementation intention intervention components nor an interaction effect was found on the outcome measures. However, statistically significant reductions in pre-drinking alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm were observed across all groups at follow-up, when compared to baseline.
Reductions in outcome measures were likely related to elements common to each condition (i.e., provision of national guidelines, assessment of outcome measures, e-mail summary, and SMS messages), rather than motivational and volitional components.
KeywordsAlcohol consumption Pre-drinking Alcohol-related harm Self-determination theory Autonomy support Action phase model Implementation intention
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The study was approved by the Curtin University Ethics Committee (Approval Number HR185/2014/AR1) and pre-registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614001102662).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Wells S, Graham K, Purcell J. Policy implications of the widespread practice of ‘pre-drinking’ or ‘pre-gaming’ before going to public drinking establishments—are current prevention strategies backfiring? Addiction. 2009;104(1):4–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02393.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Burns S, Crawford G, Hallett J, Jancey J, Portsmouth L, Hunt K, et al. Consequences of low risk and hazardous alcohol consumption among university students in Australia and implications for health promotion interventions. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2015;05(01):13. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpm.2015.51001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NLD. Self-determination theory. In: Conner M, Norman P, editors. Predicting and changing health behaviour: research and practice with social cognition models. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2015. p. 107–41.Google Scholar
- 31.Knee CR, Neighbors C. Self-determination, perception of peer pressure, and drinking among college students. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(3):522–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00228.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Cooke R, Dahdah M, Norman P, French DP. How well does the theory of planned behaviour predict alcohol consumption? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;(ahead-of-print):1–20.Google Scholar
- 39.Orbell S, Sheeran P. ‘Inclined abstainers’: a problem for predicting health-related behaviour. Br J Soc Psychol. 1998;37(2):151–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01162.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.Hagger MS, Luszczynska A, de Wit J, Benyamini Y, Burkert S, Chamberland PE, et al. Implementation intention and planning interventions in Health Psychology: recommendations from the Synergy Expert Group for research and practice. Psychol Health. 2016;31(7):814–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2016.1146719.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 54.Webb TL, Joseph J, Yardley L, Michie S. Using the internet to promote health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e4. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1376.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 56.National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian guidelines to reduce risks from drinking alcohol. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. p. 179.Google Scholar
- 59.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;29(7):1180–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ALC.0000171940.95813.A5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 63.Brown JM, Miller WR, Lawendowski LA. The self-regulation questionnaire. 1999.Google Scholar
- 65.Foster JH, Ferguson C. Alcohol ‘pre-loading’: a review of the literature. Alcohol Alcohol. 2013:agt135.Google Scholar
- 66.Pedersen ER, LaBrie JW, Kilmer JR. Before you slip into the night, you'll want something to drink: exploring the reasons for prepartying behavior among college student drinkers. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2009;30(6):354–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840802422623.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 78.Leontini R, Schofield T, Lindsay J, Brown R, Hepworth J, Germov J. “Social stuff” and institutional micro-processes alcohol use by students in Australian university residential colleges. Contemp Drug Probl. 2015:0091450915580970.Google Scholar