Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26447792›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Stand-Alone Personalized Normative Feedback for College Student Drinkers: A Meta-Analytic Review, 2004 to 2014.

Keri B Dotson, Michael E Dunn, Clint A Bowers

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. A mobile-based pregaming drinking prevention intervention for college students: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2023
    Trial
  12. Personalized normative feedback for hazardous drinking among college women: Differential outcomes by history of incapacitated rape.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2023
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Correcting exaggerated drinking norms with a mobile message delivery system: Selective prevention with heavy-drinking first-year college students.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2020
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Keri B DotsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America.
Michael E DunnDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America.
Clint A BowersDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNorms 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). Previous reviews have examined PNF in combination with other components but not as a stand-alone intervention.

objectivesTo investigate the degree to which computer-delivered stand-alone personalized normative feedback interventions reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms among college students and to compare gender-neutral and gender-specific PNF. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched systematically through November 2014. Reference lists were reviewed manually and forward and backward searches were conducted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Outcome studies that compared computer-delivered, stand-alone PNF intervention with an assessment only, attention-matched, or active treatment control and reported alcohol use and harms among college students.

methodsBetween-group effect sizes were calculated as the standardized mean difference in change scores between treatment and control groups divided by pooled standard deviation. Within-group effect sizes were calculated as the raw mean difference between baseline and follow-up divided by pooled within-groups standard deviation.

resultsEight studies (13 interventions) with a total of 2,050 participants were included. Compared to control participants, students who received gender-neutral (dbetween = 0.291, 95% CI [0.159, 0.423]) and gender-specific PNF (dbetween = 0.284, 95% CI [0.117, 0.451]) reported greater reductions in drinking from baseline to follow-up. Students who received gender-neutral PNF reported 3.027 (95% CI [2.171, 3.882]) fewer drinks per week at first follow-up and gender-specific PNF reported 3.089 (95% CI [0.992, 5.186]) fewer drinks. Intervention effects were small for harms (dbetween = 0.157, 95% CI [0.037, 0.278]).

conclusionsComputer-delivered PNF is an effective stand-alone approach for reducing college student drinking and has a small impact on alcohol-related harms. Effects are small but clinically relevant when considered from a public health perspective. Additional research is needed to examine computer-delivered, stand-alone PNF as a population-level prevention program.

Indexed as

Feedback, PsychologicalAlcohol DrinkingAlcohol Drinking in CollegeDatabases, FactualHumansInternet

Identifiers

PMID26447792
PMCPMC4598082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.