Depressive symptoms as a moderator of college student response to computerized alcohol intervention.
Alcohol
Brief intervention
Depression
Personalized normative feedback
Young adult
Journal
Journal of substance abuse treatment
ISSN: 1873-6483
Titre abrégé: J Subst Abuse Treat
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8500909
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
02
11
2019
revised:
28
04
2020
accepted:
14
05
2020
entrez:
1
7
2020
pubmed:
1
7
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Personalized normative alcohol feedback (PNF) is associated with decreased alcohol use among young adults. However, limited research has examined the influence of depressive symptoms on PNF efficacy. This study examined symptoms of depression as a moderator of college student response to a computerized PNF intervention for alcohol use. College students (N = 212, 59% female) who reported drinking in a typical week completed baseline and one-month assessments as part of a previously published intervention trial. We randomized participants to alcohol PNF (n = 153) or assessment only (n = 59). We used regression models to examine the interaction between PNF and symptoms of depression on alcohol outcomes at one-month follow-up. One in four participants screened positive for clinically significant symptoms of depression. Depressive symptoms did not moderate intervention effects on drinking quantity. However, PNF was only associated with reduced frequency of heavy episodic drinking and lower probability of any alcohol-related consequence in the context of mild to moderate (not minimal) symptoms of depression. PNF is more effective than assessment alone in reducing drinking quantity, regardless of symptoms of depression. However, it may only be more effective in decreasing frequency of heavy episodic drinking and the probability of alcohol-related consequences among those experiencing mild to moderate (as opposed to minimal) symptoms of depression. Alcohol intervention trials should assess symptoms of depression and consider them in data analysis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Personalized normative alcohol feedback (PNF) is associated with decreased alcohol use among young adults. However, limited research has examined the influence of depressive symptoms on PNF efficacy. This study examined symptoms of depression as a moderator of college student response to a computerized PNF intervention for alcohol use.
METHODS
College students (N = 212, 59% female) who reported drinking in a typical week completed baseline and one-month assessments as part of a previously published intervention trial. We randomized participants to alcohol PNF (n = 153) or assessment only (n = 59). We used regression models to examine the interaction between PNF and symptoms of depression on alcohol outcomes at one-month follow-up.
RESULTS
One in four participants screened positive for clinically significant symptoms of depression. Depressive symptoms did not moderate intervention effects on drinking quantity. However, PNF was only associated with reduced frequency of heavy episodic drinking and lower probability of any alcohol-related consequence in the context of mild to moderate (not minimal) symptoms of depression.
CONCLUSIONS
PNF is more effective than assessment alone in reducing drinking quantity, regardless of symptoms of depression. However, it may only be more effective in decreasing frequency of heavy episodic drinking and the probability of alcohol-related consequences among those experiencing mild to moderate (as opposed to minimal) symptoms of depression. Alcohol intervention trials should assess symptoms of depression and consider them in data analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32600626
pii: S0740-5472(20)30294-4
doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108038
pmc: PMC7327132
mid: NIHMS1596688
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
108038Subventions
Organisme : NIAAA NIH HHS
ID : K23 AA026895
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Addict Behav. 2015 Mar;42:36-43
pubmed: 25462652
Addict Behav. 2018 Oct;85:70-76
pubmed: 29860191
Addiction. 2017 Jun;112(6):968-1001
pubmed: 28220587
Br J Psychol. 2009 Aug;100(Pt 3):603-17
pubmed: 19017432
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2016 Jul;77(4):620-8
pubmed: 27340967
Psychopathology. 2011;44(1):27-33
pubmed: 20980785
Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Dec;32(8):690-703
pubmed: 23022767
J Appl Psychol. 2006 Jul;91(4):917-26
pubmed: 16834514
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Dec;82(6):984-92
pubmed: 24865872
Psychol Addict Behav. 2018 Nov;32(7):792-799
pubmed: 30284879
Psychol Addict Behav. 2013 Dec;27(4):909-20
pubmed: 23276309
JAMA. 2012 Jun 6;307(21):2278-85
pubmed: 22706833
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2018 Sep;79(5):686-696
pubmed: 30422781
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016 Feb;84(2):122-33
pubmed: 26689302
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012 Oct;80(5):876-86
pubmed: 22663899
Acad Psychiatry. 2015 Oct;39(5):503-11
pubmed: 25142250
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013 Jan;37(1):16-22
pubmed: 22823467
Alcohol Res. 2013;35(2):201-18
pubmed: 24881329
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2017 Jun;85(6):562-573
pubmed: 28333511
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008 Jul;69(4):611-5
pubmed: 18612578
J Biopharm Stat. 2010 Jul;20(4):787-802
pubmed: 20496206
Psychol Addict Behav. 2019 Nov;33(7):603-615
pubmed: 31448930
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2013 Nov;74(6):841-51
pubmed: 24172110
PLoS One. 2016 May 16;11(5):e0155431
pubmed: 27182821
J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012 Sep;43(2):260-7
pubmed: 22197301
J Psychoactive Drugs. 2014 Apr-Jun;46(2):85-92
pubmed: 25052784
J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013 Oct;45(4):335-42
pubmed: 23810264
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Apr;83(2):430-7
pubmed: 25486373
BMC Public Health. 2016 Sep 15;16:976
pubmed: 27627885
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2017 Jul;78(4):540-548
pubmed: 28728636
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1985 Apr;53(2):189-200
pubmed: 3998247