Sign up now

Sign up for TPRB – the Treatment Practitioner's Research Bulletin

TPRB Home Past Issues Continuing Education Editorial Board About TPRB

Supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Alkermes, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., and Reckitt Benckiser.

Additional support provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.


Effectiveness of a Computerized Versus Teacher-Led Alcohol Prevention Program Focusing on Harm Reduction
September 2009

Email
Email
Print
Print
Research Summary and Comments

Some studies suggest alcohol prevention programs in schools are not effective. To determine whether a prevention program is more effective when delivered by computer than when teacher-delivered, researchers in Australia randomly assigned year-8 students (mean age, 13 years) from 16 schools to either a computerized alcohol harm reduction program (n=611) or the usual education program including social influence and harm reduction taught by teachers (control group) (n=855).

The computer program used teenage scenarios delivered via cartoon format followed by classroom discussion, skill rehearsal, and role-play. Assessments at baseline, immediately following delivery of the program, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up focused on changes in alcohol-related knowledge, expectancies related to use (i.e., anticipation of good effects of drinking), use, harm related to use, and expectancies related to use.

  • Knowledge of harm minimization and skills regarding alcohol use immediately following the intervention was significantly higher in the group receiving the computerized intervention compared with controls; however, this difference diminished at 6 and 12 months.
  • The computerized intervention also prevented increases in positive alcohol expectancies
  • Among girls,
    • average alcohol consumption, including excessive single-occasion drinking,* remained the same in the computer intervention group throughout the follow-up period, while it increased in the control group.
    • those in the computer intervention group experienced significantly less harm related to alcohol consumption at 12 months than those in the control group.
  • Among boys,
    • there were no differences between groups in average alcohol consumption, excessive single occasion drinking, or alcohol-related harm at any follow-up period.

* ≥4 drinks per occasion.

Comments by Michael Boyle, MA
The computerized intervention had more favorable effects than the teacher-led intervention on alcohol-related knowledge, positive expectancies, and (among girls only) alcohol consumption and related harm. But abstinence in a teenage population that is already using alcohol may not be an achievable goal, regardless of how an intervention is delivered. The more realistic goal may be prevention of alcohol-related harm. Clearly, more effective programs are needed, particularly for boys.

Reference:
Vogl L, Teesson M, Andrews G, et al. A computerized harm minimization prevention program for alcohol misuse and related harms: randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2009;104(4):564–575.