Home > Effect of a smartphone intervention as a secondary prevention for use among university students with unhealthy alcohol use: randomised controlled trial.

Bertholet, Nicolas and Schmutz, Elodie and Studer, Joseph and Adam, Angéline and Gmel, Gerhard and Cunningham, John A and McNeely, Jennifer and Daeppen, Jean-Bernard (2023) Effect of a smartphone intervention as a secondary prevention for use among university students with unhealthy alcohol use: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 382, e073713.

External website: https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1665

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of providing access to an alcohol intervention based on a smartphone.

SETTING: A Randomised controlled trial in four higher education institutions in Switzerland. 1770 students (≥18 years) who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use (ie, a score on the alcohol use disorders identification test-consumption (AUDIT-C) of ≥4 for men and ≥3 for women) were randomly assigned by 1:1 allocation ratio in blocks of 10.

INTERVENTION: Providing access to a brief, smartphone based alcohol intervention.

OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome studied was number of standard drinks per week at six months and the secondary outcome was number of heavy drinking days (past 30 days). Additional outcomes were maximum number of drinks consumed on one occasion, alcohol related consequences, and academic performance. Follow-up assessments occurred at months three, six, and 12. Data were analysed by intention to treat and by using generalised linear mixed models with random intercepts for the recruitment site and participants nested within the recruitment site, and with intervention ( control), time (three months six months; 12 months six months), and baseline outcome values as fixed effects.

RESULTS: Between 26 April 26 2021 and 30 May 2022, 1770 participants (intervention group (n=884); control group (n=886)) were included. Mean age was 22.4 years (standard deviation 3.07); 958 (54.1%) were women; and 1169 (66.0%) were undergraduate students, 533 (30.1%) were studying for a master's degree, 43 (2.4%) were studying for a doctorate, and 25 (1.4%) were students of other higher education programme. The baseline mean number of standard drinks per week was 8.59 (standard deviation 8.18); the baseline number of heavy drinking days was 3.53 (4.02). Of 1770 participants, follow-up rates were 1706 (96.4%) at three months, 1697 (95.9%) at six months, and 1660 (93.8%) at 12 months. Of 884 students randomly assigned to the intervention group, 738 (83.5%) downloaded the smartphone application. The intervention had a significant overall effect on the number of standard drinks per week (incidence rate ratio 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.96)), heavy drinking days (0.89 (0.83 to 0.96)), and the maximum number of drinks consumed on one occasion (0.96 (0.93 to 1.00), P=0.029), indicating significantly lower drinking outcomes in the intervention group than in the control group during the follow-up period. The intervention did not affect alcohol related consequences or academic performance.

CONCLUSIONS: Providing access to the smartphone application throughout the 12 month follow-up was effective at limiting the average drinking volume of university students who had self-reported unhealthy alcohol use at baseline.


Repository Staff Only: item control page