Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33592624›Full record

SynthesisAlcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire)2022

Do Brief Alcohol Interventions Reduce Driving After Drinking Among College Students? A Two-step Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data.

Eun-Young Mun, Xiaoyin Li, Shelby Lineberry, Zhengqi Tan, David Huh, Scott T Walters, Zhengyang Zhou, Mary E Larimer, in Collaboration with Project INTEGRATE Team

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Screening for high-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder: update of the 2023 national clinical practice guideline.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Guideline
  3. Investigating for Whom Brief Substance Use Interventions Are Most Effective: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Using mobile technology to influence alcohol-impaired driving risk perceptions and decisions.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2024
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Injunctive Norms and Driving Under the Influence and Riding With an Impaired Driver Among Young Adults in Washington State.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eun-Young MunDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Systems, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1820-615X
Xiaoyin LiDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Systems, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8028-8910
Shelby LineberryDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA.
Zhengqi TanDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2297-2770
David HuhSchool of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6357-4883
Scott T WaltersDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Systems, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4074-6141
Zhengyang ZhouDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8039-418X
Mary E LarimerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA.
in Collaboration with Project INTEGRATE Team
University of North Texas · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

University of Washington Developmental AIDS Research Center for Mental Health (UW ARCH)P30MH123248 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CHWASTIAK, LYDIA ANN · 2021 to 2024
$5.8M
Innovative Analyses of Alcohol Intervention Trials for College StudentsR01AA019511 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR · PI MUN, EUN-YOUNG · 2010 to 2021
$4.6M
Optimizing Brief Alcohol Interventions for Young Adults via Computational MethodsK02AA028630 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR · PI MUN, EUN-YOUNG · 2021 to 2025
$668k
NIAAA NIH HHS K02 AA028630NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA019511NIH HHSNIMH NIH HHS P30 MH123248
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsCollege students who drink are at an increased risk of driving after drinking and alcohol-involved traffic accidents and deaths. Furthermore, the persistence of driving after drinking over time underscores a need for effective interventions to prevent future drunk driving in adulthood. The present study examined whether brief alcohol interventions (BAIs) for college students reduce driving after drinking.

methodsA two-step meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) was conducted using a combined sample of 6801 college students from 15 randomized controlled trials (38% male, 72% White and 58% first-year students). BAIs included individually delivered Motivational Interviewing with Personalized Feedback (MI + PF), Group Motivational Interviewing (GMI), and stand-alone Personalized Feedback (PF) interventions. Two outcome variables, driving after two+/three+ drinks and driving after four+/five+ drinks, were checked, harmonized and analyzed separately for each study and then combined for meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis.

resultsBAIs lowered the risk of driving after four+/five+ drinks (19% difference in the odds of driving after drinking favoring BAIs vs. control), but not the risk of driving after two+/three+ drinks (9% difference). Subsequent subgroup analysis indicated that the MI + PF intervention was comparatively better than PF or GMI.

conclusionsBAIs provide a harm reduction approach to college drinking. Hence, it is encouraging that BAIs reduce the risk of driving after heavy drinking among college students. However, there may be opportunities to enhance the intervention content and timing to be more relevant for driving after drinking and improve the outcome assessment and reporting to demonstrate its effect.

Indexed as

Alcohol Drinking in CollegeAutomobile DrivingDriving Under the InfluenceAdultAlcohol DrinkingFemaleHumansMaleStudentsUniversities

Identifiers

PMID33592624
PMCPMC8753781
OpenAlexW3132317418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.