How is an electronic intervention received in a student population?

INEBRIAFriday November 9th 2009, 11-12.30h

Jessica FraeymanJunior researcher

University of Antwerp, Belgium

2

Belgium

3

Antwerp

4

Drinking behaviour in Belgium

Alcohol consumption in 2003*:

• Belgium: 14th in world – 8,8 l • UK: 7th in world – 9,6 l

Beer consumption:Belgium: 7th place

*World drink trends, 2003

5

Students in Antwerp 5,500 students

97% ever drunk alcohol

Binge drinking (>5 dr/occasion)

male: 2,0% daily

high risk for problematic alcohol use :

10,3-11,1% of male students

1,8-6,2% of female students

6

www.eentjeteveel.be

7

Research questions

• How is an electronic SBI received in a student

population?

• Who is reached by the intervention?

• What are the experiences of students with the

intervention?

• How can the intervention motivate students who show

risk for problematic alcohol use to think about their

alcohol use and to change their drinking behaviour?

8

Qualitative research method

• Experiences of users! • UNEXPLORED

• Focus group discussions

9

Intervention

• Brief intervention• Website 24h/7d

• Personalised electronic feedback• Behaviour change

• Aimed at college students

10

Results

• 10.5% per institution• 3,528 students

54.6% male 45.8% in general student population

• High risk: male > female*

*Van Hal et al, 2007

11

Results • AUDIT- high risk

unique visits: 18.1%repeated visits: 29.0%

Students in high risk groups are more likely to do the test again

« a shocking result can stimulate one to do more tests »

Underestimation

12

Results• High risk VS low risk

no referral: 73.9-84.7info: 20.3-13.3referral: 5.8-2.0

Students in high risk group are more likely to choose for referral

« …it made me think whether to take another drink or not. »

13

Results• Alcohol use of others• Friend as help

• Internet suited for information on issue• Intervention suited for certain group of

drinkers

« for someone who has the feeling ‘it’s maybe a bit too much now’, the website can have an influence. »

14

Results

• Appearance: influence?*no resultsfurther research

*Walters, 2005• Content: influence?*

*Bewick, 2008. A systematic review

15

Conclusion

• Well receivedthresholdattention

• High risk groups

• To think about alcohol use

• Misperceptions

16

Current and future research

• Alcohol in trafficalcohol tester

• Alcohol and drug policy in Antwerpstudents’ opinions

• RCT

17

Thank you very much for your attention!

Are there any questions?

www.eentjeteveel.be