1 / 17

How is an electronic intervention received in a student population?

How is an electronic intervention received in a student population?. INEBRIA Friday November 9 th 2009, 11-12.30h Jessica Fraeyman Junior researcher University of Antwerp, Belgium. Belgium. Antwerp. Drinking behaviour in Belgium. Alcohol consumption in 2003*:

avak
Download Presentation

How is an electronic intervention received in a student population?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How is an electronic intervention received in a student population? INEBRIA Friday November 9th 2009, 11-12.30h Jessica Fraeyman Junior researcher University of Antwerp, Belgium

  2. Belgium

  3. Antwerp

  4. Drinking behaviour in Belgium • Alcohol consumption in 2003*: • Belgium: 14th in world – 8,8 l • UK: 7th in world – 9,6 l • Beer consumption: • Belgium: 7th place *World drink trends, 2003

  5. Students in Antwerp • 5,500 students • 97% ever drunk alcohol • Binge drinking (>5 dr/occasion) male: 2,0% daily • high risk for problematic alcohol use : 10,3-11,1% of male students 1,8-6,2% of female students

  6. www.eentjeteveel.be

  7. Research questions • How is an electronic SBI received in a student population? • Whoisreached by the intervention? • What are the experiences of studentswith the intervention? • How can the intervention motivatestudentswho show risk for problematicalcohol use to think about theiralcohol use and to change theirdrinkingbehaviour?

  8. Qualitative research method • Experiences of users! • UNEXPLORED • Focus group discussions

  9. Intervention • Brief intervention • Website 24h/7d • Personalised electronic feedback • Behaviour change • Aimed at college students

  10. Results • 10.5% per institution • 3,528 students 54.6% male  45.8% in general student population • High risk: male > female* *Van Hal et al, 2007

  11. Results • AUDIT- high risk unique visits: 18.1% repeated visits: 29.0% Students in high risk groups are more likely to do the test again « a shocking result can stimulate one to do more tests » Underestimation

  12. Results • High risk VS lowrisk no referral: 73.9-84.7 info: 20.3-13.3 referral: 5.8-2.0 Students in highrisk group are more likely to choose for referral « …it made me thinkwhether to takeanother drink or not. »

  13. Results • Alcohol use of others • Friend as help • Internet suited for information on issue • Intervention suited for certain group of drinkers « for someone who has the feeling ‘it’s maybe a bit too much now’, the website can have an influence. »

  14. Results • Appearance: influence?* no results further research *Walters, 2005 • Content: influence?* *Bewick, 2008. A systematic review

  15. Conclusion • Well received threshold attention • High risk groups • To think about alcohol use • Misperceptions

  16. Current and future research • Alcohol in traffic alcohol tester • Alcohol and drug policy in Antwerp students’ opinions • RCT

  17. Thank you very much for your attention! Are there any questions? www.eentjeteveel.be

More Related