A Phase 1/2 interventional study of e-checkup to go and Norms-only booster in College Student Drinking, sponsored by Abby Braitman. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 24 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-06-22.
Sponsored by Abby Braitman · Phase 1/2, Interventional, and Treatment
Help build ClinicalTrials.gg — short surveys, remote interviews or testing, in your language. Take part →
Among 31 studies in Alcohol Drinking in College with a site in United States — 8 open to participants now, 9 under way, none of them phase 3. Alcohol Drinking in College · United States.
Among the 31 studies in Alcohol Drinking in College with a site in United States, this one is the 11th largest by enrollment, is one of 2 that started in 2017, is one of 4 in phase 1/2, and was the 3rd registered.
38 studies on the registry are indexed under Alcohol Drinking in College; 8 are open to participants now.
Browse Alcohol Drinking in College studies →8 of the 31 studies in Alcohol Drinking in College with a site in United States are open now. Recruiting first, the newest first:
University of Florida · Sites in United States
Ages 18–24 · Healthy volunteers
University of Florida · Sites in United States
Ages 18–22 · Healthy volunteers
University of Washington · Sites in United States
Ages 18–29 · Healthy volunteers
State University of New York at Buffalo · Sites in United States
Ages 18–24 · Women only · Healthy volunteers
University of Washington · Sites in United States
Ages 18+ · Women only · Healthy volunteers
A study can be open while its sites in United States have not opened yet or have stopped. Only those recruiting at a site in United States →
Of the 5 Alcohol Drinking in College studies recruiting now, 1 sets no upper age limit and 4 stop at 75 or younger; none take children under 18; 5 take healthy volunteers.
This study: 18 Years to 24 Years · all sexes · no healthy volunteers.
The full table on the hub →This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
31 studies; the count open now beside each. This study's row is marked.
First in 2005; this study’s year is marked. 2 started in 2017.
This study's enrollment of 528 is above the median of 258 across 36 interventional studies indexed under Alcohol Drinking in College.
Median enrollment 266 across the 31 interventional studies. Of the 20 that completed or were terminated, 11 (55%) have results posted.
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
None of the 31 has an industry lead sponsor. The 10 most frequent:
Abby Braitman is the lead sponsor of 5 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Abby Braitman has 5 studies filed under Alcohol Drinking in College — fewer than ten, so there is no comparison to draw.
3 of the studies in Alcohol Drinking in College with a site in United States that are under way reach primary completion within a year, 0 of them phase 3. Phase 3 first, then by date:
| Study | Primary completion |
|---|---|
| NCT05011903Anne E RayIntegrative Alcohol and Risky Sex Feedback for College Students | 2027-01-31 |
| NCT07782398University of FloridaMomentary Coping Prompts and Hair Steroids in College Students | 2027-05 |
| NCT07789314University of FloridaJust-in-Time Coping Prompts for Reactive Digital Behavior in College Students | 2027-05 |
Add all 3 to your calendar (.ics) → With an account.
Among the 31 studies in Alcohol Drinking in College with a site in United States, from their registry updates:
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
Heavy episodic alcohol use within the college student population is widespread, creating problems for student drinkers, their peers, and their institutions. Negative consequences from heavy alcohol use can be mild (e.g., hangovers, missed classes), to severe (e.g., assault, even death). Although online interventions targeting college student drinking reduce alcohol consumption and associated problems, they are not as effective as in-person interventions. Online interventions are cost-effective, offer privacy, reduce stigma, and may reach individuals who would otherwise not receive treatment.
In a recently completed randomized, controlled trial, an emailed booster with personalized feedback improved the efficacy of a popular online intervention (Braitman \& Henson, 2016). Although promising, the booster incorporated in the study needs further empirical refinement. In addition, the intervention originally tested (Alcohol 101 Plus) is no longer widely available.
The current project seeks to build on past progress by further developing and refining the booster. In addition, it examines the utility of the booster after a different, widely-used, empirically-supported online intervention (e-checkup to go). e-checkup to go directly provides personalized normative feedback, but not protective strategies, the two components of the examined booster. Hence, the current study compares the reinforcing content (normative feedback) to the combination of reinforcing and novel content (norms PLUS protective strategies). There are 3 conditions: all participants receive the initial online intervention targeting college drinking. Condition 1 does not receive a booster email. Condition 2 receives an emailed booster with normative feedback only. Condition 3 receives an emailed booster with normative feedback plus protective strategies. The aims of the current study are as follows:
Aim 1: Examine if novel feedback in the form of protective strategies enhances the reinforcing normative feedback received via booster email (i.e., a comparison of reinforcing normative feedback only versus reinforcing normative feedback plus novel protective strategy feedback).
Aim 2: Examine previously identified potential moderators and mediators of reductions in alcohol use and related problems.
Heavy episodic alcohol use within the college student population is widespread, creating problems for student drinkers, their peers, and their institutions. Negative consequences from frequent or heavy alcohol use can be mild (e.g., hangovers, missed classes), moderate (e.g., poor grades, damaged relationships), or severe (e.g., assault, even death). Given the potentially dangerous consequences, reducing alcohol use and associated problems is a major health priority. Although online interventions targeting college student drinking reduce alcohol consumption and associated problems, they are not as effective as in-person interventions. The benefits of online interventions include cost-effectiveness and ease of administration, plus they offer privacy, reduce stigma, and may reach individuals who would otherwise not receive treatment.
Although post-intervention boosters have been shown to be effective for individuals seeking treatment for alcohol-related injuries in emergency medical settings, limited studies have investigated the efficacy of boosters for college students who have received alcohol interventions. In a recently completed randomized, controlled trial, an emailed booster with personalized feedback improved the efficacy of a popular online intervention, while at the same time maintaining low cost and easy dissemination (Braitman \& Henson, 2016). Although promising, the booster incorporated in the study needs further empirical refinement. In addition, the intervention originally tested (Alcohol 101 Plus) is no longer widely available.
The current project seeks to build on past progress reducing the gap between online and more efficacious in-person interventions. The current study further develops and refines the booster to identify optimal administration for maximum efficacy. In addition, it examines the utility of the booster after a different, widely-used, empirically-supported online intervention (e-checkup to go). The new intervention (e-checkup to go) directly provides personalized normative feedback, but not protective strategies, the two components of the examined booster. Hence, the current study compares the reinforcing content (personalized normative feedback) to the combination of reinforcing and enhancing/novel content (norms PLUS protective strategies). This addresses a major question of the relatively new booster literature for college drinking regarding if reinforcing content is sufficient to boost efficacy versus if novel information is an important supplementary component. There are 3 conditions: all participants receive the initial online intervention targeting college drinking. Condition 1 does not receive a booster email. Condition 2 receives an emailed booster with normative feedback only. Condition 3 receives an emailed booster with normative feedback plus protective strategies feedback. The booster content of tailored norms alone (reinforcing content) may alone be efficacious, or receiving tailored norms and strategies students can use to reduce consumption and related harm (protective behavioral strategies; novel content) may enhance the effect.
Thus, the aims of the current study are as follows:
Aim 1: Examine if novel feedback in the form of protective strategies enhances the reinforcing tailored normative feedback received via booster email (i.e., a comparison of reinforcing normative feedback only versus reinforcing normative feedback plus novel protective strategy feedback).
Hypothesis 1a: Both groups receiving emailed feedback will reduce drinking and alcohol-related problems as compared to the intervention-only control condition.
Hypothesis 1b: Reductions in drinking and problems will be stronger for those who receive emails with novel protective strategy feedback rather than reinforcing norms alone.
Aim 2: Examine previously identified potential moderators and mediators of reductions in alcohol use and related problems (i.e., gender, norms, strategies).
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants navigate through e-checkup to go, the well-established alcohol intervention. Their email 2 weeks later contains only a reminder to participate in follow-up surveys.
Behavioral: e-checkup to go
Participants navigate through e-checkup to go, the well-established alcohol intervention. Their email 2 weeks later contains a reminder to participate in follow-up surveys, plus personalized feedback based on participant reported perceived alcohol norms, actual alcohol norms, and their own use.
Behavioral: e-checkup to go · Behavioral: Norms-only booster
Participants navigate through e-checkup to go, the well-established alcohol intervention. Their email 2 weeks later contains a reminder to participate in follow-up surveys, plus personalized feedback based on participant reported perceived alcohol norms, actual alcohol norms, and their own use. It also includes reported harm reduction strategies, and other strategies they might consider.
Behavioral: e-checkup to go · Behavioral: Norms-plus-Strategies booster
The e-checkup to go substance program is designed to motivate individuals to reduce their consumption using personalized information about their own use and risk factors. The program is a combination of several components including alcohol education, personalized feedback, attitude-focused strategies, and skills training. It is self-guided and requires no face-to-face time with an administrator. It provides tailored feedback regarding quantity and frequency of alcohol use, normative comparisons, physical health information, amount and percent of income spent on alcohol, negative consequences feedback, explanation and advice for how to reach their goals, and resources.
Booster emails will contain normative feedback indicating average consumption for students at the same institution by sex, their perceptions of student drinkers at the same institution, their own reported consumption, and how they compare.
Booster emails will contain normative feedback indicating average consumption for students at the same institution by sex, their perceptions of student drinkers at the same institution, their own reported consumption, and how they compare. These booster emails will also contain reminders of strategies they can use to protect themselves from alcohol-related harm, both ones they've reported using in the past and others they might consider using in the future.
Alcohol Consumption at 3 Months Post-intervention
Participant self-reported number of standard drinks consumed by participant in a typical week.
Time frame: Past 30 days (3 months post-intervention)
Alcohol-related Consequences 3 Months Post-intervention
Assessed via the "Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire" (Read et al., 2006). Participants indicate if they experienced an alcohol-related problem with a yes (=1) or no (=0). Scores are created by summing across all 48 items (range 0 to 48), where higher scores indicate experiencing more alcohol-related consequences/problems. Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., \& Colder, C. R. (2006). Development and preliminary validation of the young adult alcohol consequences questionnaire. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 169-177. doi:10.15288/jsa.2006.67.169
Time frame: Past 30 days (3 months post-intervention)
| Milestone | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster |
|---|---|---|---|
| Started | 201 | 163 | 164 |
| Completed | 201 | 163 | 164 |
| Not completed | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Milestone | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster |
|---|---|---|---|
| Started | 201 | 163 | 164 |
| Completed | 134 | 113 | 107 |
| Not completed | 67 | 50 | 57 |
| Milestone | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster |
|---|---|---|---|
| Started | 201 | 163 | 164 |
| Completed | 117 | 89 | 96 |
| Not completed | 84 | 74 | 68 |
Participant self-reported number of standard drinks consumed by participant in a typical week.
| drinks per week | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alcohol Consumption at 3 Months Post-intervention | 4.08 ± 5.81 | 4.15 ± 5.71 | 4.89 ± 7.68 |
Assessed via the "Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire" (Read et al., 2006). Participants indicate if they experienced an alcohol-related problem with a yes (=1) or no (=0). Scores are created by summing across all 48 items (range 0 to 48), where higher scores indicate experiencing more alcohol-related consequences/problems. Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., \& Colder, C. R. (2006). Development and preliminary validation of the young adult alcohol consequences questionnaire. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 169-177. doi:10.15288/jsa.2006.67.169
| score on a scale | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alcohol-related Consequences 3 Months Post-intervention | 3.27 ± 5.68 | 2.37 ± 3.73 | 2.67 ± 4.11 |
Collected over 3 months post-intervention. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention-only Control | 0/201 (0%) | 0/201 (0%) | 0/201 (0%) |
| Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | 0/163 (0%) | 0/163 (0%) | 0/163 (0%) |
| Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster | 0/164 (0%) | 0/164 (0%) | 0/164 (0%) |
Participants were students enrolled at a large, southeastern public university. To be eligible, participants must have been between the ages of 18-24, and consumed at least one alcoholic beverage in the previous 2 weeks.
| Age, Continuous(years) | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 19.80 ± 1.66 | 19.75 ± 1.53 | 20.02 ± 1.74 | 19.85 ± 1.65 |
| Sex/Gender, Customized(Participants) | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 51 | 47 | 51 | 149 |
| Female | 150 | 115 | 113 | 378 |
| Other | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hispanic or Latino | 176 | 146 | 145 | 467 |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 25 | 17 | 16 | 58 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asian | 17 | 7 | 9 | 33 |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Black or African American | 80 | 76 | 77 | 233 |
| White | 67 | 50 | 49 | 166 |
| More than one race | 20 | 25 | 18 | 63 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 17 | 5 | 11 | 33 |
| Drinks per typical week (quantity)(drinks per week) | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 8.18 ± 8.41 | 6.72 ± 7.14 | 8.05 ± 10.32 | 7.69 ± 8.71 |
| Drinking days per typical week (frequency)(drinking days per week) | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 2.24 ± 1.25 | 1.96 ± 1.13 | 2.23 ± 1.32 | 2.15 ± 1.24 |
| Highest drinking occasion in a typical week (peak)(drinks per day) | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 4.01 ± 2.98 | 3.48 ± 2.55 | 3.71 ± 3.20 | 3.76 ± 2.93 |
| Alcohol-related consequences (problems)(score on a scale) | Intervention-only Control | Intervention Plus Norms-only Booster | Intervention Plus Norms-plus-Strategies Booster | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 6.21 ± 6.59 | 6.07 ± 7.05 | 6.28 ± 7.17 | 6.19 ± 6.91 |
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
Plan to share: No
Ran from Apr 2017 to primary completion in Apr 2018, 11 months.
Results were first posted in Jun 2023, 5 years 2 months after primary completion.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in May 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Abby Braitman