Table 2.

Description of intervention programs, duration and outcomes in alphabetical order of first author (n = 12)

Author, year	Interventions/duration	Salient findings
Fantini et al., 2023	Duration: First intervention delivered within 30 days, second assessment from March to April (30 days) and last assessment after 6 months (September–October 2019). Well-being Intervention (WBI) and Lifestyle Intervention (LI); Six 2-hour sessions held every 10–15 days.	Regarding BD, well-being (WBI) and lifestyle interventions (LI) showed a very good outcome (group-by-time interaction was statistically significant for the total AUDIT-C score especially for WBI with p = 0.044) and LI with p = 0.016 in comparison to no intervention, from baseline to six-month follow-up
	Sessions delivered by a clinical psychologist. Brainstorming, role plays, group discussions and games, were used n. Lifestyle intervention was based on psychoeducation.
King et al., 2019	Duration: Baseline (session 1 and 2) to 1-month follow-up.	BASICS significantly reduced BD and related consequences. Telehealth and face-to-face interventions can significantly reduce BD by p-value = .02
	Brief Alcohol Screening Intervention for College Students (BASICS) through telehealth compared to face-to-face
Lyden et al., 2022	Duration: 3 months, The M-bridge study consisted of an embedded tailoring variable (self-monitoring their heavy drinking) which triggered the attempt to bridge students to the intervention; online chat with a health coach or receive a resource email.	The use of API rules reduced BD frequency by about 1 occasion per 2.5 months 95% CI: decrease of 1.45–0.28 occasions, with a p-value =0.005.
	The process connected students to the intervention by providing them with the option to engage in an online conversation with a health coach or get a resource email.
Morris et al., 2022	Duration: Sessions 1–4 (4 weeks). Brief motivational intervention (BMI), including the paradigms and constructs for motivational information enhancement and cognitive-behavioral strategies.	Confidence to change; p < 0.001 Readiness to change, p = 0.002 Importance to change; p = 0.43 decrease in alcohol use; p = 0.01.
Norman et al., 2017	Duration: 3 weeks before starting college; 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after entering college with follow-up link questionnaires that assessed their alcohol intake. Repeated TPB after 1 and 6 months.	TPB had a direct effect on BD at 6 months; p = 0.004. Reduction to non-significance when TBP values were controlled; p = 0.37.
	Theory of planned behavior; self-affirmation, a person’s implementation intentions; self-affirmation task (questionnaire about important values and attributes) and then finished the theory of planned behavior cognitions measures concerning BD. Before starting college, students were to complete measures of alcohol consumption.
Norman et al., 2019	Duration: 2 weeks. Theory of planned behavior and Implementation intentions; After reading a summary of the health risks associated with BD.	Participants who formed an implementation intention engaged in BD less frequently at follow-up than participants who were not asked to form an implementation intention. After the intervention, participants engaged in BD reduced their drinking attitude (p < 0.01)
	The participants were to complete a self-affirmation log for the exercise implementation intention risk or not an exercise. Participants were then to complete full questionnaires regarding messages.
Patrick et al., 2021	Duration: 30 days for self-monitoring strategies 60 days to transition from self-monitoring to bridging strategy first follow-up survey in December 2019, 2nd follow-up in April/May 2019. M-bridge; there were 2 stages. The first stage combined Personalized Normative Feedback (PNF) and self-monitoring.	Change in BD frequency from baseline to follow-up, p = 0.243.
	Participants were invited via email and text messages strategies included virtual chat with a health coach.
Pueyo‐Garrigues et al., 2023	Duration: 50-min face-to-face motivational interview, conducted between October 2019 and April 2020. Peer-led BASICS session, the intervention group received a peer-led BASICS session that consisted of a one-off 50-min face-to-face motivational interview. Participants are provided with a personalized geographical feedback sheet, with topics such as participants drinking patterns, level of intoxication, perceived or actual drinking norms, alcohol expectancies, and individual risk factors.	The intervention group had a significant effect on BD episodes (mean = 0.3; p-value = 0.023). Participants in the intervention group reported significantly less BD and lower BAC than those in the control group (peak BAC, d = 0.98; BD episodes, d = 0.96).
Suffoletto et al., 2019	Duration: 12 weeks and 28 weeks. 5 Text message interventions; on days those participants drank (1–3 days per week); later they received ecological momentary assessments (EMA) of drinking plans and desire to get drunk. They were asked to report the number of drinks consumed the previous day.	Binge drinking reduced from 93% to 65% by week 12. Using all the text message interventions showed a significant reduction in binge drinking and heavy episodic drinking over time.
Tahaney and Palfai, 2017	Duration: One text a day for 30 days. Text messaging and web-based intervention: eCHECKUP TO GO-alcohol. Motivational techniques to provide individualized feedback were used.	Results showed that participants in the web-based intervention and text messages group showed less weekend BD. Individuals in the text messaging group did not exhibit significantly fewer alcohol-related consequences at follow-up (p = 0.33)
Wisk et al., 2021	Duration: 7.5-min of video content of intervention; 2-week follow-up. Social cognitive theory; Psycho-educational intervention targeting alcohol-related knowledge, attitudes and behavior of college students with type 1 diabetes.	The intervention model was highly acceptable and highly effective in reducing BD at follow-up. Participants reported a significant decrease BD 2 weeks after intervention (odds ratio = 0.48; 95% CL 0.31–0.75) compared to 2 weeks before the intervention (43/122, 35.2%)
Yurasek et al., 2017	Duration: 15-min Brief Advice; Online assessment 6 weeks after the BA; Follow-up assessment at 3, 6- and 9-months post-intervention. Brief assessment (BA), BAC, brief motivational intervention (BMI); Participants who reported binge drinking following BA sessions were randomized to a brief motivational intervention. Manualized BA (psychoeducation) was administered by a peer counselor.	Heavy-drinking and marijuana users may benefit from alcohol use interventions. Multiple regression models showed that baseline marijuana user status was not associated with changes in HED frequency or alcohol consequences following the interventions all with a p-value >0.05