Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25486373›Full record

SynthesisJournal of consulting and clinical psychology2015

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

Jennifer M Cadigan, Angela M Haeny, Matthew P Martens, Cameron C Weaver, Stephanie K Takamatsu, Brooke J Arterberry

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Incentives and delivery modality as moderators of a web-based personalized normative feedback intervention for heavy-drinking college students.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2025
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Thirty years of BASICS: Dissemination and implementation progress and challenges.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2022
    Article
  20. College students' receptiveness to intervention approaches for alcohol and cannabis use.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer M CadiganDepartment of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology.
Angela M HaenyDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri.
Matthew P MartensDepartment of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology.
Cameron C WeaverDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin.
Stephanie K TakamatsuDepartment of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology.
Brooke J ArterberryDepartment of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology.
University of Missouri · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Psychology of Alcohol Use and Dependence TrainingT32AA013526 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI DENIS M MCCARTHY, KENNETH JAMES SHER · 2002 to 2026
$9.0M
Alcohol and Adult Development: Understanding Etiology and ConsequencesK05AA017242 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI SHER, KENNETH JAMES · 2007 to 2016
$2.1M
Personalized Drinking Feedback: An Event-Specific Text-Message InterventionF31AA022830 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI CADIGAN, JENNIFER M · 2013 to 2014
$69k
NIAAA NIH HHS 1F31AA022830NIAAA NIH HHS F31 AA022830NIAAA NIH HHS K05 AA017242NIAAA NIH HHS T32 AA013526NIAAA NIH HHS T32AA13526
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAlcohol 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.

methodA 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.

resultsWeighted 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.

conclusionsFor 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

Indexed as

FeedbackAlcohol DrinkingFemaleHumansMaleStudentsUniversities

Identifiers

PMID25486373
PMCPMC4380651
OpenAlexW2067043395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.