A Phase 1/2 interventional study of e-checkup to go and Feedback-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 2022-06-30.
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 18th largest by enrollment, is one of 4 that started in 2018, 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. 4 started in 2018.
This study's enrollment of 249 is close to 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.
The current project seeks to build on past progress by further developing and refining the booster. In particular, one aspect missing from online interventions is a connection with a person invested in improving the student's outcomes. The current study aims to generate a personal connection for online interventions through a follow-up booster emailed by a member of the research staff. Outcomes will be compared for participants who receive a follow-up booster with similar content, but is clearly automatically generated and not from any particular individual.
There are 3 conditions: all participants receive the initial online intervention targeting college drinking. Condition 1 (the control group) receives an email with a reminder to complete the follow-up surveys, but no feedback (i.e., no booster). Condition 2 receives an emailed booster with normative feedback plus protective strategies feedback, clearly automatically generated. Condition 3 receives an emailed booster with normative feedback plus protective strategies feedback, from a member of the research staff. The booster content alone (automatically generated) may be efficacious, or the additional personal connection may enhance the effect.
Thus, the aim of the current study is to examine if personal contact enhances the tailored feedback received via booster email.
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.
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 particular, one aspect missing from online interventions is a connection with a person invested in improving the student's outcomes. The current study aims to generate a personal connection for online interventions through a follow-up booster emailed by a member of the research staff. Outcomes will be compared for participants who receive a follow-up booster with similar content, but is clearly automatically generated and not from any particular individual.
There are 3 conditions: all participants receive the initial online intervention targeting college drinking. Condition 1 (the control group) receives an email with a reminder to complete the follow-up surveys, but no feedback (i.e., no booster). Condition 2 receives an emailed booster with normative feedback plus protective strategies feedback, clearly automatically generated. Condition 3 receives an emailed booster with normative feedback plus protective strategies feedback, from a member of the research staff. The booster content alone (automatically generated) may be efficacious, or the additional personal connection may enhance the effect.
Thus, the aim of the current study is to examine if personal contact enhances the tailored feedback received via booster email.
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 from an individual rather than automatically generated.
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, then receives the Feedback-only booster. 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, their own use, and harm reduction strategies. The content is clearly automatically generated.
Behavioral: e-checkup to go · Behavioral: Feedback-only booster
Participants navigate through e-checkup to go, the well-established alcohol intervention, then receives the Feedback-plus-personal-contact booster. 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, their own use, and harm reduction strategies. The email is sent from a member of the research staff.
Behavioral: e-checkup to go · Behavioral: Feedback-plus-personal-contact 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 reminders of strategies they can use to protect themselves from alcohol-related harm. The content is clearly automatically generated.
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 reminders of strategies they can use to protect themselves from alcohol-related harm. The email is sent from an individual on the research staff.
Alcohol consumption
Participant self-reported number of standard drinks consumed by participant over the past 2 weeks.
Time frame: Past 2 weeks
Alcohol-related consequences
Participant self-report on the Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read, Kahler, Strong, \& Colder, 2006), which assesses alcohol-related problems experienced by the participant. Total scores are created by summing all individual items, and range from 0 to 48, with higher values representing more problems experienced (i.e., worse outcomes).
Time frame: Past 2 weeks
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
Plan to share: No
Ran from Feb 2018 to primary completion in Mar 2019, 13 months.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2022. 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