Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Apr;83(2):430-7.
doi: 10.1037/a0038394. Epub 2014 Dec 8.

Personalized drinking feedback: A meta-analysis of in-person versus computer-delivered interventions

Jennifer M Cadigan  1 , Angela M Haeny  2 , Matthew P Martens  1 , Cameron C Weaver  3 , Stephanie K Takamatsu  1 , Brooke J Arterberry  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Personalized drinking feedback: A meta-analysis of in-person versus computer-delivered interventions

Jennifer M Cadigan et al. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: Alcohol misuse is a significant public health concern. Personalized feedback interventions (PFIs) involve the use of personalized information about one's drinking behaviors and can be delivered in person or via computer. The relative efficacy of these delivery methods remains an unanswered question. The primary aim of the current meta-analysis was to identify and directly compare randomized clinical trials of in-person PFIs and computer-delivered PFIs.

Method: A total of 14 intervention comparisons from 13 manuscripts, of which 9 were college samples, were examined: in-person PFIs (N = 1,240; 49% female; 74% White) and computer-delivered PFIs (N = 1,201; 53% female; 73% White). Independent coders rated sample characteristics, study information, study design, intervention content, and study outcomes.

Results: Weighted mean effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models. At short follow-up (≤4 months), there were no differences between in-person PFIs and computer-delivered PFIs on any alcohol use variable or alcohol-related problems. At long follow-up (>4 months), in-person PFIs were more effective than computer-delivered PFIs at impacting overall drinking quantity (d = .18) and drinks per week (d = .19). These effects were not moderated by sample characteristics.

Conclusions: For assessing alcohol outcomes at shorter follow-ups, there were no differences between delivery modality. At longer follow-ups, in-person PFIs demonstrated some advantages over computer-delivered PFIs. We encourage researchers to continue to examine direct comparisons between these delivery modalities and to further examine the efficacy of in-person PFIs at longer follow-ups. (PsycINFO Database Record

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selection process for study inclusion in the meta-analysis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Alfonso J, Hall TV, Dunn ME. Feedback-based alcohol interventions for mandated students: An effectiveness study of three modalities. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. 2013;20:411–423. DOI: 10.1002/cpp.1786. - PubMed
    1. Barnett NP, Murphy JG, Colby SM, Monti PM. Efficacy of counselor vs. computer-delivered intervention with mandated college students. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32:2529–2548. DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.017. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2. Biostat; Englewood, NJ: 2005.
    1. Butler LH, Correia CJ. Brief alcohol intervention with college student drinkers: Face-to-face versus computerized feedback. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2009;23:163–167. DOI:10.1037/a0014892. - PubMed
    1. Carey KB, Scott-Sheldon LAJ, Carey MP, DeMartini KS. Individual-level interventions to reduce college student drinking: A meta-analytic review. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32:2469–2494. DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.05.004. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types