How is an electronic intervention received in a student population? INEBRIA Friday November 9 th 2009, 11-12.30h Jessica Fraeyman Junior researcher University of Antwerp, Belgium
Jan 04, 2016
How is an electronic intervention received in a student population?
INEBRIAFriday November 9th 2009, 11-12.30h
Jessica FraeymanJunior researcher
University of Antwerp, Belgium
4
Drinking behaviour in Belgium
Alcohol consumption in 2003*:
• Belgium: 14th in world – 8,8 l • UK: 7th in world – 9,6 l
Beer consumption:Belgium: 7th place
*World drink trends, 2003
5
Students in Antwerp 5,500 students
97% ever drunk alcohol
Binge drinking (>5 dr/occasion)
male: 2,0% daily
high risk for problematic alcohol use :
10,3-11,1% of male students
1,8-6,2% of female students
7
Research questions
• How is an electronic SBI received in a student
population?
• Who is reached by the intervention?
• What are the experiences of students with the
intervention?
• How can the intervention motivate students who show
risk for problematic alcohol use to think about their
alcohol use and to change their drinking behaviour?
9
Intervention
• Brief intervention• Website 24h/7d
• Personalised electronic feedback• Behaviour change
• Aimed at college students
10
Results
• 10.5% per institution• 3,528 students
54.6% male 45.8% in general student population
• High risk: male > female*
*Van Hal et al, 2007
11
Results • AUDIT- high risk
unique visits: 18.1%repeated visits: 29.0%
Students in high risk groups are more likely to do the test again
« a shocking result can stimulate one to do more tests »
Underestimation
12
Results• High risk VS low risk
no referral: 73.9-84.7info: 20.3-13.3referral: 5.8-2.0
Students in high risk group are more likely to choose for referral
« …it made me think whether to take another drink or not. »
13
Results• Alcohol use of others• Friend as help
• Internet suited for information on issue• Intervention suited for certain group of
drinkers
« for someone who has the feeling ‘it’s maybe a bit too much now’, the website can have an influence. »
14
Results
• Appearance: influence?*no resultsfurther research
*Walters, 2005• Content: influence?*
*Bewick, 2008. A systematic review
15
Conclusion
• Well receivedthresholdattention
• High risk groups
• To think about alcohol use
• Misperceptions
16
Current and future research
• Alcohol in trafficalcohol tester
• Alcohol and drug policy in Antwerpstudents’ opinions
• RCT