The computer-based randomisation ensured that researchers and participants were not aware of allocated group. Spiegelhalter D, Myles J, Jones D, Abrams K: An introduction to bayesian methods in health technology assessment. In the completed case analyses (i.e. 2001, Geneva: World Health Organization, 57-. The results are presented as relative risks, odds ratios and difference in regression coefficients, respectively. No, Is the Subject Area "Control theory" applicable to this article? Competing interests: MTM and RO declare no competing interests. We have incorporated a number of features designed to improve this, including: Three e-mail reminders at seven day intervals to non-responders; A figure of 150 students per group is specified for analysis for both male and female hazardous drinkers resulting in an overall sample size requirement of 4000 students in each country. Grateful thanks to Dr Gil Lopes for developing the web-based technology for this study. Privacy We have not been able to assess impact on acute harms, violence and crime because of insufficient information for modelling. For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click A more serious issue is in relation to external validity, specifically generalizability [22]. Personalized normative feedback (PNF) has shown promise as a stand-alone intervention for reducing alcohol use among college students. No, Is the Subject Area "Medical risk factors" applicable to this article? The applicability of personalised normative feedback to populations and settings that are different from those in the trials whether positive effects have been found is uncertain [22]; moreover an overall conclusion of no effect for this sort of intervention [47] cannot be discounted. PubMed Central  Recruitment, follow-up and attrition are described in Figure 1. The aim of the trial is to determine the effectiveness of an on-line personalized feedback intervention for reducing alcohol consumption amongst undergraduate University students when compared with a control group, in both the UK and Portugal. 2007. There is also a question about whether PNF is effective over and above the simple alcohol screening/assessment test that itself raises awareness about alcohol consumption [23]. The interactions were removed from the analysis due to insignificant effects. Data will be analysed by a researcher blinded to experimental group. Yes Participants were recruited via a web site that provided trial information and enabled informed consent. Edited by: Addiction. By . Personalised normative feedback (PNF) aims to correct this misperception by providing information about personal drinking levels and patterns compared with norms in similar aged peer groups. Article  Blackout or memory lapse; 2. Yes Approximately 501 college students at the University of Texas at El Paso were recruited to participate during the spring, summer, and fall 2011 semesters. Canada. The feedback also provided general information about alcohol and how it might affect them at their current drinking levels, including how long it could take to return to a zero blood alcohol level after a typical drinking occasion. Article  We intend to assess intervention efficacy in the student population as a whole and in particular a subgroup of hazardous drinkers (AUDIT ≥ 8), for both males and females. BMC Public Health 8, 113 (2008). Personalized Normative Feedback (PNF) is a popular social norms-based intervention strategy which presents individuals with a personalized, individual report designed to correct misperceived peer norms using a graphical display. Over the past few years, innovative approaches to implementing brief motivational interventions have been developed, with a growing number of controlled studies Personalized Normative Feedback and the Moderating Role of Personal Norms: A Field Experiment to Reduce Residential Water Consumption - P. Wesley Schultz, Alyssa Messina, Giuseppe Tronu, Eleuterio F. Limas, Rupanwita Gupta, Mica Estrada, 2016. The interaction between these different components, and how they are presented to participants, may be important in determining effectiveness. BMJ. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. No, Is the Subject Area "Undergraduates" applicable to this article? 1751 students, from 22 British Universities, allocated to a PNF group, a normal control group, or a delayed measurement control group to allow assessment of any measurement effects. they withdrew from the allocated treatment); 2. All other scores (Audit, Alcohol-related Problems, Drinking Norms and Positive Expectancies) were analyzed with linear/log-linear regression using xtmixed (StataCorp). One of the best trials we have identified so far has been by Kypri [6]in New Zealand, where an electronic Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) approach identified students at high risk and then provided normative feedback to this group. Norms clarification has been identified as an effective component of college student drinking interventions, prompting research on norms clarification as a single-component intervention known as Personalized Normative Feedback (PNF). The sample at baseline (N = 2611) consisted of first and second year students enrolled in UK universities. Been embarrassed by your actions; 3. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Details of recommended sensible drinking levels were also provided. In the UK alcohol-related mortality is increasing compared with many other European countries where rates are declining or unchanged. Addiction. The following assumptions [39] guided the multiple imputation: 1. all randomised participants were followed-up even if they did not participate in the intervention (i.e. We needed an achieved sample size of 900 hazardous drinkers (150 per gender per group), based on effect size estimates of a mean difference in AUDIT score of 1.9 (s.d. Random effects models [29], [30] allow the incorporation of all participants with at least 1 follow-up observation. Although Kypri [9] and others have targeted high risk drinkers, the prevention paradox states that more harm comes from those at lower levels of risk, and Rossow [10] has recently demonstrated that this paradox holds, albeit to a lesser extent, for heavy episodic drinking and acute harms. We calculated normative misperception from two variables: the number of alcoholic drinks (“yourself” and “students in your year”) respondents felt were on average consumed at parties or social events. Online personalized normative feedback (PNF) interventions have been found to reduce college drinking, yet few studies have investigated the effect of event-specific PNF on drinking. Personalised normative feedback (PNF) aims to correct this misperception by providing information about personal drinking levels and patterns compared with norms in similar aged peer groups. Yes here. 2008, [http://www.camh.net/About_Addiction_Mental_Health/Drug_and_Addiction_Information/evaluate_your_drinking.html], The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/113/prepub. It is conceivable that this could have influenced retention rates, but we regard this as unlikely given more immediate feedback was provided in similar studies that had similar or poorer retention rates [44]–[46] and similar findings of limited/no effectiveness. In this study personalised normative feedback was presented to university students via email with information about the norms for the “average” student in their university, as in previous research [48] where similar proximal referent norms were used. The feedback will also compare their drinking – in graphical format – to the drinking of their student peers. For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click On the other hand, this study was a large pragmatic randomised trial with design, sampling, recruitment and follow-up characteristics that are similar to other large European trials [44]–[46]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044120.t005, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044120.t006. Objective: Twenty-first birthdays are associated with extreme levels of heavy drinking and alcohol-related harm. All analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT) and all participants were followed up regardless of their compliance with the intervention. Annual Symposium of the Society for the Study of Addiction 2007; York. The effectiveness of brief personalized normative feedback in reducing alcohol-related problems amongst University students: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. So, one possible explanation for our null results in this study is that we obtained results on a different group of students than other studies that have found significant effects. Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images. We found no evidence for any systematic attrition bias. Similarly, the postgraduate researcher who emailed the standardised PNF to the intervention group participants was not blind to group allocation. The internal consistency for this scale was alpha = 0.71. Information about how much students actually consume, accurate statistics about the frequency of negative consequences among them and basic information relating to alcohol are part of the approach [4]. Responses were summed to provide an alcohol-related problems score (range 10 to 20 with a higher score indicating more problems). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044120.t001, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044120.t002. Baseline demographic questions asked about university year, age, gender, living arrangements and weight. Feedback, personalised & normative" by Youth AOD Toolbox on Vimeo, the home for high quality videos and the people who love them. AIMS: To evaluate the effects of the two main components of a personalized normative feedback (PNF) [normative feedback only (NFO); and consequences feedback only (CFO)] compared with the full intervention (PNF) in reducing alcohol use and consequences. Many brief interventions include personalized normative feedback (PNF) using gender-specific or gender-neutral referents. PNF was provided by email. Around 55,000 young people in Europe died from causes related to alcohol use in 1999 [1, 2]. 2007, 102 (1): 62-70. Only one outcome measure, weekly drinking, showed a significant effect at 6-months with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.417 (95% CI 0.223, 0.781), but this had disappeared by 12-months (OR = 0.710, 95% CI 0.435, 1.160). A personalized normative feedback text-message intervention to reduce 21st birthday alcohol use and problems.