A scoping review of Dry January: Evidence and future directions

Abstract

Dry January is a temporary alcohol abstinence challenge where participants commit to abstaining from drinking alcohol for one month. It has grown in popularity since its inception more than ten years ago. The current scoping review sought to broadly characterize the peer-reviewed literature on Dry January, summarize its main findings, strengths and limitations, and delineate future research directions. In total, 90 publications were screened and 16 were reviewed. Findings revealed that compared to drinkers in the general population who did not participate, Dry January participants tended to report having higher incomes, completed university education, reported being female, younger, and engaging in heavy drinking at baseline. Those who consumed light to moderate amounts of alcohol were more likely to report successfully abstaining than heavier drinkers. Among successful abstainers, short- and mid-term sustained reductions in self-reported alcohol use and improved biological outcomes, well-being, and drink refusal self-efficacy were observed. Benefits were also reported among those who did not fully abstain. Most Dry January participants would participate in the program again. Overall, Dry January demonstrates significant promise and warrants more rigorous research. As nearly all extant research derives from the United Kingdom, future research should investigate applications and effects beyond that population.

Short Summary

The current scoping review examines Dry January, a month-long alcohol abstinence challenge, highlighting its growing popularity and positive effects. Findings reveal notable benefits in alcohol reduction and well-being regardless of whether participants fully abstained. However, more rigorous research is needed including population-based studies, analog randomized controlled trials to explore potential mechanisms of effect and intervention adaptations, and trials with longer-term follow-ups.

In 2016, a little under half (43% or 2.3 billion people) of the global population aged 15 years and older had consumed alcohol in the past year (World Health Organization, 2018). Alcohol consumption is associated with several health risks and harms, and is among the leading causes of preventable mortality and morbidity (Rehm et al., 2009; Gore et al., 2011; Forouzanfar et al., 2016). Recent research suggests that even light-to-moderate alcohol consumption is associated with increased risk for premature mortality (Ortolá et al., 2024). Therefore, it is critical to develop strategies that aim to reduce population-level risks associated with drinking.

Challenges that encourage temporary alcohol abstinence may be one pathway to reduce alcohol consumption at the population-level. Evidence from tobacco abstinence challenges has shown that such campaigns can impact both individual and population-level smoking. For example, Stoptober, a 31-day smoking abstinence challenge, was first implemented in 2012 in the UK; an outcome analysis (Brown et al., 2014) showed that rates of quitting smoking in the UK were significantly higher in October 2012 relative to other months in 2012, and exceeded quit rates in the month of October in prior years (2007-2011).

Dry January, a 31-day alcohol abstinence challenge run by Alcohol Change UK, has occurred every January in the UK since its launch in 2013 (de Ternay et al., 2022). According to the Alcohol Change UK website, its popularity has grown dramatically over time, from 4,000 people officially registering to participate on the campaign website in 2013, compared to over 175,000 registered participants in 2023. The growth and reach of Dry January is partially due to its partnering with the National Health Service (NHS; national healthcare organization in the UK), whose practitioners promote the program in their patient populations. Most recently, a survey conducted by Alcohol Change UK found that 16% of UK adults (about 8.5 million) planned to abstain from drinking alcohol in January 2024, compared to a survey in 2017 in which 4 million UK adults reported planning to abstain in January 2018. The Dry January campaign is intended for people who exceed low-risk drinking recommendations¹ who may be putting their health at risk. It is explicitly not intended for people with chronic or severe alcohol use disorders (Ballard, 2016).

Alcohol Change UK has also developed other temporary abstinence challenges, such as Sober Spring, which aims to capitalize on the momentum among those taking part in Dry January. Those who wish to participate in Dry January are encouraged to register on the official Alcohol Change UK website and access additional free resources produced by the campaign including daily coaching emails, the Dry January blog and podcast, and the Try Dry app. Participants are also encouraged to follow Alcohol Change UK on a variety of social media platforms. In recent years, Alcohol Change UK has also recruited social media influencers, called ambassadors, to provide tips for Dry January and Sober Spring through the official campaign blog and social media pages. There is also a Try Dry book available for purchase and written by Alcohol Change UK (Dry January, 2018).

In this scoping review, we sought to characterize the extant research literature related to Dry January, summarize its main findings, strengths and limitations, and delineate suggestions for future research. In the current study, we focused our scoping review specifically on Dry January and not on other one-month abstinence challenges due to the following reasons. First, alcohol prevalence and drinking culture vary substantially by country, creating distinct contexts in which campaigns are carried out. Second, the specific campaigns, including their components and resources provided, vary. Third, more research exists on Dry January to date compared with any other abstinence challenge.

Although one prior scoping review of Dry January has been published (de Ternay et al., 2022), the current scoping review differs in several key ways. First, our objective was to broadly review all published studies about Dry January, and we included studies that were excluded from the prior review, such as studies with more restricted samples, experimental research designs, and qualitative studies. Second, we focused exclusively on Dry January, whereas the prior review included studies of any one-month alcohol abstinence challenges. Third, we focused exclusively on peer-review publications, while the prior review included seven Dry January annual reports. Finally, our review updates the de Ternay et al. (2022) review and includes more recent publications

Methods

Based on our research objectives and the state of the literature, we determined that a scoping review was more appropriate than a systematic review (Munn et al., 2018). In conducting this review, we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We conducted a systematic literature search in MEDLINE through PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SocINDEX, and Global Health from inception to 31/08/2023 using the single search phrase “Dry January” in the title or abstract. There were no restrictions on date, country, or language for included literature. However, we did not find any qualifying non-English language articles. A senior reference librarian provided guidance and reviewed our search protocol prior to our beginning the search. Resulting articles from the search were uploaded to the systematic review tool Covidence for further filtering and extraction.

Original research articles were included in this scoping review if they: defined or characterized Dry January campaigns; described the methods or implementation of Dry January campaigns; were reported as analogs or simulations designed to test the effects of Dry January campaigns²; examined the outcomes of Dry January campaigns in terms of alcohol consumption, or any health-related or quality of life measure; or analyzed other data related to Dry January campaigns. We excluded commentaries, non-peer-reviewed articles, and review papers presenting no original findings. Corrigenda to articles already included in the review were excluded after said article extractions were updated to reflect corrections. See figure 1 for more information about the papers included and excluded.

Figure 1. Papers included and excluded in the scoping review of the perceptions and benefits of participating in Dry January.

From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

The title and abstract screenings were performed independently by two authors (SMC and SU) who also resolved conflicts amongst themselves. Full text review was performed independently by SMC and SU, and conflicts were resolved by a third author (MKM or MS). Reference lists from all included articles after the full-text review were searched for additional articles that were missed in the initial search and were included for review if they had "Dry January" in the title or abstract. Article extraction was performed independently by a randomized pair of two authors (SMC, MKM, MS, SU) and consensus was reached by discussion among all authors.

Extracted data for original research articles included: variables identifying the study (identification number, title, lead author contact details, country in which the study was conducted), aim(s) of the study, study logistics (start and end dates, funding sources, possible conflicts of interest for study authors), methods (procedures, population/sample size, and measures), and key findings. Reviewers noted any additional points of interest they identified in the studies. The descriptive results of the extracted studies are reported in the results below.

Results

Characteristics of Empirical Studies

In total, we identified 16 empirical studies that met the inclusion criteria. Study characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Studies employed a mix of methodologies including qualitative, mixed methods, and experimental approaches. Observational and non-randomized quantitative studies were more common (10/16) than other types of designs; four studies used qualitative methods. One randomized trial and one simulation study were identified. Most studies were conducted in the UK (10/16).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the reviewed empirical studies

Author(s), Year, Country	Study Aims	Population/Sample Size (n)/Data Collection	Measures
Longitudinal Studies
de Visser & Piper, 2020, United Kingdom	1) Are the benefits of Dry January are experienced only by people who fully complete Dry January?	1192 Dry January registrants and 1549 adult drinkers who did not try to abstain were recruited from the general population via online panel.	AUDIT-C; 7-item WEMWBS; DRSE; a homegrown measure that assessed concern about the effect of drinking on their health and control they had over their drinking; demographics including gender, age, ethnicity, household income, and education
Oldham et al., 2022, United Kingdom	1) Have more people attempted to reduce their alcohol consumption because of participation in Dry January in 2021 compared to 2020? 2) Which alcohol use and sociodemographic factors are associated with engaging Dry January? Are any of these associations moderated by year? 3) Did the number of Try Dry app users differ between January 2021 and January 2020? 4) Did alcohol use and sociodemographic factors differ among Try Dry app users in January 2021 versus January 2020?	Study 1 - Random location sampling was used to invite a new sample of 1,700 adults each month to participate in the ATS survey with 1,863 respondents (weighted N = 1,845) in January and February 2020 and January and February 2021 Study 2 – Data from 104,598 Try Dry app users who had logged at least one dry or not dry day in January 2020 or 2021 was used for analysis	Recency of last reduction attempt; reasons for attempting to cut down; reducing alcohol consumption because considering future health; AUDIT; number of reduction attempts in past year; smoking status; live alone; live with children; sociodemographic factors including age, sex, SES
de Visser et al., 2016, United Kingdom	1) What are the correlates of successfully abstaining for the month of January? 2) Is success or failure to maintain abstinence associated with later alcohol consumption?	857 Dry January website registrants were provided with a link to the online survey	AUDIT; DRSE; age of first drink; longest period of abstinence from alcohol since their first drink; attempting Dry January with another person; fundraising for Dry January; drinking intentions after Dry January; number of days after registering for Dry January until first alcoholic drink
de Visser et al., 2017, United Kingdom	1) What is the growth in Dry January participation? 2) What are the benefits of registering for Dry January compared to reducing alcohol consumption without registering for Dry January?	1) Total number of Dry January registrants from 2013-2016 2) 1699 adult drinkers from the general population completed an online survey 3) 2499 Dry January Registrants completed an online survey 4) 250 drinkers who expressed a desire to reduce their alcohol consumption but had not registered for Dry January were recruited for an online panel	1) No measures 2) Awareness of Dry January and if they made an attempt to abstain from alcohol during January 3) if they successfully completed Dry January, signed up to receive support, read support materials, how helpful supports were, would participate again 4) AUDIT, DRSE
de Visser & Nicholls, 2020, United Kingdom	1) What are the associations between well-being (i.e. energy, finances, health, sleep, weight) and successfully (or unsuccessfully) completing Dry January? 2) What are the associations between general self-efficacy and successful (vs. unsuccessful) attempts at Dry January? 3) How do participants perceive support provided by Dry January and if using this support is associated with completion of Dry January when controlling for other known predictors of success?	4232 Dry January website registrants were sent a link to complete an online survey	AUDIT; DRSE; GSE; WEMWBS; whether had previously participated in Dry January; whether they were participating in Dry January with another person
Mehta et al., 2018, United Kingdom	1) What changes in insulin resistance, metabolic risk factors, and cancer-related growth factors occur after participating in short-term abstinence from alcohol?	Email advertisements sent to University College London, Queen Mary University of London, and New Scientist Magazine recruited 145 moderate drinkers who were randomly assigned to either an abstinence group where they abstained for 1 months (n = 97) or a control group where they continued drinking as normal (n = 48)	Insulin resistance (measured by homeostatic model assessment [HOMA] score), weight, blood pressure (BP), vascular endothelium growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factors (EGF), liver function, SLIQ, AUDIT, TLFB
Albertella et al., 2021, Netherlands	1) Is reward-related attentional capture associated with abstinence during IkPas?	683 IkPas registrants completed an online survey	Value-modulated attentional capture task - reward only variant (VMAC) score, measures of alcohol use in the past month included the frequency of weekday and weekend drinking day, and the average number of drinks per weekday and weekend day, number of days consumed alcohol during IkPas, age, gender
Munsterman et al., 2018, Netherlands	1) Does one month of alcohol abstinence improve liver health in moderate alcohol consumers?	25 adults were assigned to the intervention group and 9 non-drinkers were assigned to the control group	Average alcohol use in the previous month in standard units per week, liver stiffness, liver fat percentage, gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), ferritin, carbohydrate deficient transferrin (CDT)
Coghlan, 2014, United Kingdom	1) What are the effects of abstinence on liver function in healthy people?	14 self-selected members of the New Scientist staff either abstained from alcohol for 5 weeks or continued to drink normally	Liver fat, blood glucose, cholesterol, sleep quality, concentration, social contact
Buckley et al., 2022, United States	1) Can a computational model reproduce historical patterns in US population alcohol use and simulate a hypothetical scenario, “Dry January”?	US population aged 18 to 80 from 1984-2015 from the following data sources: US Census, American Community Survey, Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)	Age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital employment and parental status, highest educational attainment and household income, and baseline alcohol consumption
Cross-sectional Studies
Valter et al., 2023, France	1) Are sociodemographic factors, clinical factors, and health literacy are associated with changes in alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic?	Email invitations sent to all medical students by the university administration and social media posts shared by student organizations promoting the survey recruited 934 French medical students at the Université Paris Cité	Awareness of alcohol prevention campaigns delivered by the university and student organizations, whether students wanted increase awareness of campaigns, self-perceived alcohol harmfulness, perception of risk about the number of standard drinks per day, ever heard of and if had participated in Dry January, FACE, changes in alcohol use in past 12 months, other substance use, PHQ-4
Case et al., 2021, United Kingdom	1) Has the reported increased participation in Dry January between 2015 and 2018 been associated with alcohol reduction activities independently of pre-existing seasonal variation?	37,142 respondents of the Alcohol Toolkit Study (ATS) which is a monthly, cross-sectional, nationally representative in-home survey of adults aged 16+ in England living in private households. Sampling is a hybrid between random location and quota sampling	AUDIT-C, whether currently trying to restrict your alcohol consumption, reasons for restricting consumption, whether used a website or app to help restrict consumption
Qualitative Studies
Russell et al., 2022, United States	1) What themes are present among tweets about Dry January, and is there consistency in the language used to discuss Dry January over time (2020-2022)? 2) Do unique themes or patterns emerge in Dry January tweets after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic? 3) What is the association between tweet composition (sentiment, who authored) and engagement with Dry January tweets?	Twitter application programming interface (API) v2 and Python 3.9 were used to extract 222,917 tweets across 3 separate years of participation (12/15/19 to 02/15/20, 12/15/20 to 02/15/21, 12/15/21 to 02/15/22)	N/A
Russell et al., 2023, United States	1) What is the overall sentiment toward Dry January? 2) What user account types post Dry January content? 3) What reported benefits are associated with Dry January participation and completion? 4) What are the barriers to participation and reasons for unsuccessful attempts at Dry January?	Twitter Application Programming Interface (API) v2 using Python 3.9 was used to extract 157,280 tweets	N/A
Yeomans, 2019, United Kingdom	1) What is the meaning and significance of the Dry January to its participants and its organizers?	All content included on the Dry January website during this campaign or contained within 32 generic emails sent to all Dry January participants during January or early February 2017, 62 posts and 2,500 comments made on the Dry January Facebook community page between 1st January 2017 and 4th February 2017	N/A
Field et al., 2020, United Kingdom	1) What is the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a large-scale randomized control trial to establish any long-term benefits or negative consequences of temporary abstinence?	25 women were recruited via advertisements placed on social media targeted at people living in the local region (Merseyside, UK)	AUDIT, SOCRATES, DRSE, R-SRC, blood pressure

Note. ATS = Alcohol Toolkit Study, AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, WEMWBS = Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, DRSE = Drink Refusal Self-efficacy, GSE = General self-efficacy, SLIQ = Simple Lifestyle Indicator Questionnaire, TLFB = Timeline Follow Back, FACE = Fast Alcohol Consumption Evaluation, PHQ-4 = Patient Health Questionnaire-4, SOCRATES = Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Questionnaire, R-SRC = Relevant-feature Stimulus–Response Compatibility.

Summary of Main Findings

Key outcomes for each of the studies are presented in Table 2. Below findings are summarized by topic.

Table 2.

Key findings from the reviewed empirical studies

Author(s), Year, Country	Key Findings*
Longitudinal Studies
de Visser and Piper, 2020, United Kingdom	Dry January participants reported higher SES, physical well-being, lower rates of alcohol use, and were more concerned about the effects of drinking on their health than adult drinkers in the general population. However, Dry January participants tended to report lower psychological well-being and self-efficacy for refusing alcohol at baseline than adult drinkers
Oldham et al., 2022, United Kingdom	Study 1 - A greater proportion of higher risk drinkers reported a reduction attempt motivated by temporary abstinence in 2021 (8%) compared to 2020 (4%). Those who reported a reduction attempt in the past year were more likely report that it was motivated by engagement in Dry January, Study 2 - The number of Try Dry app users increased by 38.4% between 2020 and 2021. Try Dry app users were older (42.8 vs. 40.5) and mostly female (70% vs. 68%) in 2021 compared to 2020
de Visser et al., 2016, United Kingdom	About two-thirds of Dry January registrants successfully completed Dry January with nearly equal proportions of men and women reporting success. Success was associated with fewer drinks per drinking day, lower frequency of drunkenness, and lower AUDIT scores at baseline. Conversely, successful participants reported greater social and emotional DRSE at baseline. The only predictor of success was lower frequency of drunkenness at baseline.
de Visser et al., 2017, United Kingdom	1) There was an increase in Dry January registrants from 2013 to 2016 (4,000 vs. 60,000) despite there being no changes in the amount of publicity, 2) The percentage of adult drinkers from the general population reporting attempts to abstain during January (but not officially registering for Dry January) was low in 2015 and 2016 (7-11%). However, awareness of Dry January among those trying to abstain but had not registered in 2015 and 2016 (64-78%), 3) About two-thirds of Dry January registrants reported successfully completing Dry January and (92%) said they would participate in Dry January again at the 1-month follow-up. At the 1-month follow-up, nearly all registrants signed up to receive email support from Dry January (96%), with about 70% saying they read every message and found them to be helpful for avoiding drinking. Text message support was the second most popular (57%) and 78% said these texts were helpful. Only 42% used social media support with three-quarters finding it to be helpful, 4) Compared to drinkers who wanted to change their drinking but hadn't officially registered for Dry January, Dry January registrants reported lower AUDIT scores and increased DRSE (social, emotional, opportunistic) at the 6-month follow-up
de Visser and Nicholls, 2020, United Kingdom	Participation in and successful completion of Dry January were associated with increased GSE and WEMWBS at one-month follow-up. Unsuccessful attempts at Dry January was associated with increased WEMWBS but not GSE one month later. Successful completion of Dry January was associated with increased well-being in all five specific domains. Participants who read messages of support from Dry January generally perceived them to be helpful and always reading these messages significantly predicted successful completion of Dry January. Other significant baseline predictors of success included being male, lower AUDIT score, and higher emotional DRSE
Mehta et al., 2018, United Kingdom	From baseline to 1-month follow-up, all outcomes significantly improved in the abstinence group including HOMA, systolic BP, diastolic BP, weight, VEGF, and EGF. Liver function tests also indicated significant improvement including serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), gamma GT, and serumaspartate aminotransferase (AST). Similarly, in the abstinence group, overall AUDIT scores significantly reduced and the proportion of participants with AUDIT scores over 8 (indicating harmful use) also reduced. In contrast, no significant changes in any outcomes were observed in the control group.
Albertella et al., 2021, Netherlands	Most participants did not drink during IkPas (n = 547, 80%) but 136 indicated they drank alcohol at least one day or more. Higher baseline VMAC scores were associated with not remaining abstinent during IkPas when controlling for baseline alcohol use
Munsterman et al., 2018, Netherlands	Participants changed their alcohol use as indicated by CDT, which is a biomarker of alcohol consumption. After one month of abstinence, GGT levels significantly decreased. Liver stiffness, liver fat percentage, abdominal fat, AST, ALT, and ALP showed no significant changes. This may be due to the moderate drinking sample. While the control group showed no decreases in GGT levels, those in the intervention group showed decreases in GGT levels at timepoint 4 but then increases in GGT levels at timepoint 8. While ferritin levels were higher in the intervention group at baseline, there was no impact of changes in drinking on ferritin levels
Coghlan, 2014, United Kingdom	In the abstinence group, there were significant decreases in liver fat (15%), blood glucose levels (23%), weight (1.5 kilograms), blood cholesterol, and increases in sleep quality (10%) and concentration (18%). Among those who abstained, there was only one negative outcome which was reduced social contact. However, among participants who continued to drink normally, there were no changes in any outcomes
Buckley et al., 2022, United States	The model accurately predicts drinking frequency but has lower accuracy in predicting alcohol quantity. It estimates that habits require approximately 99.5 days to develop or change, with heavier drinkers exhibiting stronger automaticity effects. The simulation results showed that temporary abstinence influences population-level drinking. If 20% of individuals participated in Dry January, there would be a minor effect on population-level drinking. If 100% of individuals participated in Dry January, there would be a moderate effect on population-level drinking. Furthermore, the model indicates that past behavior has a greater influence on very heavy drinkers compared to other groups (i.e., medium to heavy drinkers, lighter drinkers or abstainers)
Cross-sectional Studies
Valter et al., 2023, France	Students reporting decreases in alcohol use during lockdowns (compared to students who indicated no changes in alcohol use) were more likely to have higher FACE scores and awareness of Dry January. Students who reported an increase in their consumption during lockdowns were more likely to have higher FACE scores and PHQ-4 total scores. Students who wanted the university to increase awareness of alcohol prevention campaigns (e.g., Dry January) were less likely to report an increase in alcohol use during lockdowns
Case et al., 2021, United Kingdom	Increases in Dry January participation from 2015 to 2018 was not associated with changes in drinking behavior. While attempts to cut down on alcohol were higher in January compared to other months (25% vs 20% in 2014/15 and 27% vs 19% in 2017/18), this was not associated with reductions in drinks per week. The percentage of at-risk drinkers using apps or websites for support remained consistent across January and non-January months (2% in 2014/15 and 2-3% in 2017/18). Although more people cited Dry January as a motive to quit in January than other months, the difference in participation was smaller in 2017/18 compared to 2014/15, indicating no growth in participation
Qualitative Studies
Russell et al., 2022, United States	Aim 1: Themes surrounding Dry January remained consistent over time. Unique themes emerged in 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as promoting Dry January resources, mobile apps offering support, and sharing recipes for nonalcoholic drinks. Topics related to Dry January progress (i.e., intentions to participate, failed attempts, lack of desire to participate in these types of challenges) and humor and sarcasm about participation, were found across multiple years of tweets. However, many tweets in this category expressed a lack of interest in participating in the initiative. Tweet composition influenced the number of likes, retweets, and quote-tweets. Clusters dominated by bots received less engagement compared to those authored by humans
Russell et al., 2023, United States	Aim 1: Most tweets (74.7%) were either positive or neutral toward Dry January, 26.7% were negative. Most of the negative tweets were from individual accounts (32.4%), with 26.5% incorporating humor, Aim 2: Of the tweets, 70.3% were discussions by individual users, 16.8% were commercial promotions for alcohol, 7.4% were news tweets related to Dry January or alcohol, 7.6% were tweets from the alcohol industry, 2.7% were from news organizations, and 2.6% were from public health entities. Nonalcoholic drinks were mentioned in 14% of tweets, Aim 3: A quarter of tweets (25.4%) mentioned ongoing attempts at abstaining, with only 4.3% reporting successful completion of Dry January. About 10.4% of tweets highlighted benefits. News organizations (35.5%) and public health entities (68.4%) were more likely to emphasize benefits more than individuals (5.5%). The benefits were physical (9.3%), psychological/emotional (4.1%) and financial (3.3%). Some tweets (4.3%) discussed learning about one's relationship with alcohol during Dry January, Aim 4: Mentions of physical (0.5%) and psychological/emotional (0.2%) effects during Dry January were rare. Out of 2900 tweets, 12.7% indicated completion, and 65.7% indicated unsuccessful attempts. Humor and sarcasm were often used in tweets about failed attempts, with many linking these experiences to current socio-political stressors
Yeomans, 2019, United Kingdom	Dry January employs a positive messaging strategy on Facebook, emphasizing the benefits of abstinence and fostering participation through sharing. Participants highlight positive physical effects such as weight loss, improved sleep, and energy, with minimal mention of negative effects. Psychological benefits include enhanced positive feelings, sense of control, and happiness. Dry January is perceived as an "embodied experience" with emotional and psychological benefits. Participants view Dry January as a period of experiential learning and personal improvement. The emphasis is on wellness and enjoyment during abstinence, rather than sacrifice or future health gains
Field et al., 2020, United Kingdom	The study utilized a RCT design where heavy-drinking women from the community were randomized to either complete or intermittent abstinence. This study was feasible (96% retention; 71% follow-up attendance). Both groups demonstrated good compliance with the complete group maintaining abstinence for a median of 24 days (out of 28 days) and the intermittent group maintaining abstinence for 12 days (out of 16 days). Qualitative findings highlighted issues in abstaining in familiar drinking situations and dealing with peer pressure. Participants who were successful attributed their success to social support, self-monitoring, planning of social activities, and consumption of nonalcoholic drinks

Note. SES = socioeconomic status, AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, WEMWBS = Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, DRSE = Drink Refusal Self-efficacy, GSE = General self-efficacy, HOMA = homeostatic model assessment, BP = Blood Pressure, VEGF = vascular endothelial growth factor, EGF = epidermal growth factor, GGT = gamma-glutamyl transferase, AST = aspartate aminotransferase, ALT = alanine aminotransferase, ALP = alkaline phosphatase, CDT = carbohydrate deficient transferrin, VMAC = Value-modulated attentional capture task - reward only, FACE = Fast Alcohol Consumption Evaluation, PHQ-4 = Patient Health Questionnaire-4. *Any differences noted were significant at p < .05.

Growth in Dry January Participation Over Time.

Multiple studies documented the growth in awareness and participation in Dry January over time. An early study documented a large increase in Dry January registrants from 4,000 in 2013 to 60,000 in 2016, despite there being no changes in the amount of publicity (de Visser et al., 2017). Additionally, in 2015 and 2016, 7-11% of adult drinkers tried to abstain from alcohol in January without officially registering with the Dry January campaign; awareness of the campaign among these individuals was high (64-78%).

Among high-risk drinkers, the odds of citing “Detox (e.g., Dry January)” as a motive for alcohol reduction increased from 2014/2015 to 2017/2018; in both time periods, the odds of attributing reduced drinking to “Detox (e.g., Dry January)” was greater in January than in other months. In 2017/2018, the difference in reporting “Detox (e.g., Dry January)” as a motive in the month of January versus in other months was smaller than it had been in 2014/2015. Specifically, at-risk drinkers increasingly attributed drinking reductions in months other than January to “Detox (e.g., Dry January)”, from 4% in 2014/2015 to 11% in 2017/2018. More recently, Oldham et al. (2022) investigated changes in the extent to which high-risk drinkers attempted to reduce their alcohol consumption because of participation in Dry January in 2021 compared to 2020. They found that a greater proportion of higher risk drinkers reported a reduction attempt motivated by temporary abstinence in 2021 (8%) compared to 2020 (4%), and that those who reported such a reduction attempt were increasingly likely to report that it was motivated by engaging in Dry January.

Participants’ Use of Dry January Resources.

Since its initial launch, Dry January has increased the supportive resources that it provides to participants, including emails, text messages, and the Try Dry app. In one study, 96% of participants in Dry January signed up to receive email support, 57% signed up for text message support, and 42% used social media support (de Visser et al., 2017). Regardless of modality, participants found the support helpful (de Visser et al., 2017). In another study, 89% of participants in Dry January signed up to receive email support and 45.5% signed up to receive text message support. Approximately 90% of participants read at least some of the emails/texts and over half of participants read every message. Among participants who read every message, most thought that they were useful and motivating (de Visser and Nicholls, 2020). Oldham et al. (2022) further found that there were more Try Dry app users in January 2021 compared to January 2020, with the number of Try Dry app users increasing by 38.4% between 2020 and 2021. Compared to Try Dry app users in 2020, Try Dry app users in 2021 were slightly older (42.8 vs. 40.5) and more likely to be female (70% vs. 68%; Oldham et al., 2022).

Comparison between Dry January Participants and the General Population.

Participants in Dry January tended to report greater concern about their drinking and lower psychological well-being at baseline than adults in a comparison sample of past-month drinkers from the general population (de Visser and Piper, 2020). Further, compared to this general-population drinker sample, Dry January participants tended to report having higher incomes, completing university education, being female, and being relatively younger (de Visser and Piper, 2020).

Effects of Dry January on Participant Outcomes.

Overall, Dry January participants reported decreased drinking and lower alcohol use disorder identification test (AUDIT) scores at 1 to 6-month follow up (de Visser et al., 2017; Mehta et al., 2018). Reductions in biomarkers of alcohol consumption (e.g., gamma-glutamyl transferase) were also observed among those who remained abstinent for one month (Munsterman et al., 2018). Several other positive effects were reported by those who achieved one month of abstinence during Dry January. Short- (immediately post Dry January to one month later) and mid-term (6 months later) self-reported psychological benefits included greater mental well-being, higher levels of general and drink refusal self-efficacy (DRSE), more positive feelings, a greater sense of control, and greater happiness (Yeomans, 2019; de Visser and Nicholls, 2020; de Visser and Piper, 2020). The one self-reported negative effect of participating in Dry January was that abstaining individuals reported less social contact than those who continued to drink (Coghlan, 2014). Short- and mid-term self-reported physical benefits of abstinence included greater physical well-being, weight loss, improved sleep quality, greater energy, and greater concentration (Coghlan, 2014; Yeomans, 2019; de Visser and Piper, 2020).

Positive biological changes were observed among those who remained abstinent for one month including improved insulin resistance, blood pressure, growth factors (e.g., types of chemicals that support the growth of vascular structure), and liver function (Mehta et al., 2018; Munsterman et al., 2018), both immediately post-abstinence and one month later. Other beneficial biological effects included decreases in liver fat, blood glucose, and weight (Coghlan, 2014; Mehta et al., 2018).

Rebound effects (i.e., an increase in drinking following Dry January) occurred in a small subset of participants, and were more likely to be observed among those participants who did not successfully abstain during Dry January (compared to those who did abstain). Specifically, among those who were not successful, 15% reported an increased frequency of drunkenness 6 months later compared to only 8% of those who successfully completed Dry January (de Visser et al., 2016).

Effects of Dry January on Population-Level Drinking.

A simulation study conducted by Buckley et al. (2022) was designed to estimate the extent to which Dry January effects on participants would translate to population-level drinking reductions. The simulation results indicated that if 20% of the eligible population (defined as adults consuming 3+ drinks per day) participated in Dry January, there would be a minor reduction in alcohol quantity and frequency consumed monthly for the year following participation, and if 100% of eligible individuals participated in Dry January, there would be a moderate reduction in population-level drinking (Buckley et al., 2022). A subsequent study by Case et al. (2021) found that increases in Dry January participation from 2015 to 2018 were not associated with population-level changes in low-risk drinking patterns (drinking monthly or less frequently) nor in the average weekly consumption levels reported among drinkers in a nationally representative survey of adults. This is likely due to Dry January having not reached the required threshold of participation to produce measurable population-level effects.

Predictors of Successfully Completing Dry January.

Many studies examined predictors of successfully completing Dry January (defined as one-month abstinence in most studies). In the earliest such study, de Visser et al. (2016) found that successful completion was associated with having reported fewer drinks per drinking day, lower frequency of drunkenness, and lower AUDIT scores at baseline. In a different study, de Visser and Nicholls (2020) found that success was associated with always reading Dry January messages, being male, lower baseline AUDIT scores, and higher emotional DRSE immediately post-Dry January. In a qualitative study, Field et al. (2020) found that participants who were successful attributed their success to social support, self-monitoring, planning of social activities, and consumption of nonalcoholic drinks. In a study of French medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic, Valter et al. (2023) found that students reporting decreases in alcohol use during lockdowns were more likely to have higher alcohol dependency and greater awareness of Dry January.

Albertella et al. (2021) examined whether reward-related attentional capture was associated with not remaining abstinent during IkPas (Dry January). Reward-related attentional capture is theorized to be the result of a learning process whereby alcohol cues that have been repeatedly paired with the rewards of drinking take on incentive salience; individuals who drink excessively tend to show attentional bias toward alcohol cues which in turn may trigger cravings, making abstinence difficult. The value-modulated attentional capture (VMAC) task was developed to assess this attentional bias. Albertella et al. (2021) found that, after controlling for baseline alcohol use, higher VMAC scores were associated with not remaining abstinent during IkPas. These findings indicate that even after committing to remaining abstinent, people who were more predisposed to being reactive to alcohol cues in their environment were more likely to resume drinking during the challenge.

Perceptions of Dry January.

Individuals who participated in Dry January generally perceived it positively. In one study, 92% of those who participated in Dry January said that they would participate in it again (de Visser et al., 2017). However, in another study that examined tweets over the course of three years (2020-2022), while some tweets talked about the benefits of Dry January, a significant portion of tweets used humor and sarcasm to mock the idea of participating in Dry January and expressed a general disinterest in the Dry January (Russell et al., 2022). In a follow-up study, the authors examined a small random subsample of Dry January tweets and found that most tweets showed either a positive or neutral sentiment toward Dry January (Russell et al., 2023). Only one-in-ten tweets highlighted benefits, with physical benefits (9.3%) most reported followed by psychological/emotional (4.1%) and financial (3.3%) aspects. The tweets that emphasized the benefits of Dry January were more likely to come from news organizations (35.5%) and public health entities (68.4%) rather than individuals (5.5%). Of the tweets, 26.7% conveyed a negative sentiment toward Dry January and these tweets were more likely to come from individuals (32.4%) than other sources. However, user accounts rarely mentioned negative physical (0.5%) and psychological/emotional (0.2%) effects during Dry January (Russell et al., 2023).

Strengths and Limitations of the Current Literature on Dry January

A strength of the studies included in this review was the inclusion of data from national surveys. Notably, while most studies investigated self-reported behavior and psychological outcomes, a key strength was the additional investigation of biomarker changes resulting from Dry January participation. Another strength of the current literature on Dry January was the important topics that were examined, such as growth in participation over time, characteristics of those who participate in Dry January, and predictors of success. These studies are useful for understanding trends in participation and who benefits most. There were also several studies on the perceptions of Dry January on social media. These studies help provide insights into how some people view this challenge which could inform health communication efforts. Some limitations of the current literature on Dry January were that the studies tended to be uncontrolled as opposed to using randomized analog studies, they lacked longer-term follow-ups beyond six months, and it was possible there was some selection bias as most samples were self-selected.

Discussion

Summary of Key Findings

Based on our review, Dry January demonstrates significant promise. Consistent with the previous review (de Ternay et al., 2022), we found mostly positive outcomes of Dry January documented during and after participation. Participants reported decreases in alcohol consumption as well as psychological (i.e., better mental health), physical (i.e., weight loss, improved sleep quality), and biological benefits (i.e., decreases in blood pressure, liver fat, concentrations of cancer-related growth factors, and increases in insulin resistance) at short- to medium-term follow ups. Furthermore, campaign acceptability is high, as indicated by large and dramatically increasing participation rates and positive evaluations among participants. The amount and nature of support available to participants has also increased over time and engagement with these resources is a key predictor of remaining abstinent (de Visser et al., 2017; de Visser and Nicholls, 2020). Across a variety of research methodologies, convergent findings suggest that Dry January has the potential to promote healthier drinking habits and enhance overall well-being, at least on an individual level. At a minimum, Dry January and similar abstinence challenge campaigns deserve serious consideration and further rigorous study.

Few negative effects have been associated with Dry January participation, apart from reduced social contact while abstaining from alcohol reported in one study (Coghlan, 2014) and rebound effects documented in a small percentage of participants by de Visser et al. (2016). Despite concerns about the risk of dangerous withdrawal syndrome in alcohol-dependent individuals (c.f., Cabezas and Bataller, 2016), we did not find any documented cases in the literature.

To date, despite the growing awareness of and participation in Dry January, individual-level effects of the campaign have not translated to documented changes in population-level drinking. It is plausible that the lack of population-level effects is due to Dry January not yet reaching the required participation threshold that would produce measurable effects (Buckley et al., 2022). A second factor may be that most individuals who participate in Dry January do not officially register for it, even though registration is a key predictor of success.

Implications for the Campaign

To facilitate Dry January’s success in achieving population-level benefits, the campaign must actively focus on increasing rates of participation annually. Further, it should strongly emphasize the benefits of formal registration and use of Dry January resources to support success. The campaign must also prioritize strategies to broaden the campaign’s reach, particularly among groups that have tended to be under-represented such as men, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes and educational attainment. Future work should rigorously test the efficacy of tailored messaging campaigns to improve engagement in under-represented groups. Beyond tailored messaging, different versions of Dry January campaigns and resources (e.g., daily coaching emails; Try Dry app) require adaptation for specific subpopulations. The US government’s Smokefree.gov offers a good example of a public health campaign with tailored versions available for subpopulations including military veterans, teens, and Spanish speakers.

Increasing participant registration and engagement with resources.

Future research must thoroughly investigate factors associated with registration and resource use, for example by comparing the characteristics of people who register and access resources to those who do not. For example, a recent cross-sectional survey study found that those who registered (versus those who did not) were more concerned about the health effects of drinking and reported more hazardous drinking (Lespine et al., 2024). Qualitative research is essential to investigate how people who participate in Dry January make decisions about whether to formally register or not. Qualitative methods are critical for exploring diverse participants’ perceptions of campaign resources in terms of appeal, usability, and cultural alignment. This recommendation is supported by qualitative investigations on these topics about other one-month temporary abstinence challenges (e.g., Tournée Minérale which is held in February in Belgium). In one such study, participants weighed in on the campaign resources and provided suggestions for improvement such as the materials could be more aesthetically pleasing or could change daily with new tips and non-alcohol drink recipes (Thienpondt et al., 2024).

Leveraging Influencers.

The campaign has teamed up with social media influencers to promote Dry January and should strategically expand this promising strategy by prioritizing influencers with greater numbers of followers from diverse backgrounds and specifically from subgroups of the population who have been less likely to participate in the campaign. Influencers must also share personalized links for their followers to use when registering for Dry January, which would provide the campaign with information about which influencers are having the most impact. Influencers have been successful in promoting several health behaviors such as exercising, eating healthy, cervical screening, COVID-19 hygiene, and flu vaccination (for reviews see Kaňková et al., 2025; Powell and Pring, 2024).

Directions for Future Research

The current review strongly indicates that Dry January participation yields significant positive benefits with few negative consequences. Given this evidence, future research should prioritize the following key objectives: 1) it is crucial to investigate the likelihood of rebound effects (i.e., drinking more after participating) and understand who is at most risk for experiencing them, 2) research should examine how changing message framing from abstinence to harm reduction impacts drinking reductions over time, 3) experimental designs are essential for thoroughly testing the efficacy of Dry January under more controlled conditions, and 4) proposing and rigorously testing potential mechanisms of change including drink refusal self-efficacy and motivation to change, is vital to better understand factors contributing to sustained drinking reductions post-Dry January.

Rebound effects.

Rebound effects were more likely to be observed among those who did not successfully abstain during Dry January. It is challenging to know what to make of these cases. It is unclear, for example, what percentage of participants were already on an upward trajectory in their drinking prior to participating. Given the nature of the trial, rebounding cannot be causally attributed to participating in an abstinence challenge. In contrast, another study examining the effects of participating in a different one-month temporary abstinence challenge, Tournée Minérale, researchers found no evidence for rebound effects one month after participation regardless of successful abstention (Paulis and Quertemont, 2025). Future research could utilize longitudinal designs to examine how failure to abstain impacts psychological and behavioral outcomes and determine whether particular subgroups are more at risk for failing to abstain and for rebounding.

In our review, we found that individuals who engaged in heavier drinking were more likely to participate in Dry January (de Visser et al., 2017). This finding is consistent with recent research indicating that among emerging adults, those who undertook a temporary abstinence challenge were more likely to report past-month heavy drinking, more alcohol-related consequences, and higher past-year AUDIT scores (Siconolfi et al., 2024). Similarly, in a sample of adults, Dry January participants were more likely to be concerned about their drinking and meet the criteria for AUD than non-participants, but there were no differences between participants and non-participants in terms of scoring 5 or higher on the AUDIT-C (defined as high-risk drinking) (Lespine et al., 2024). These empirical findings contrast with the assertion that because Dry January participants are self-selected, they may be at lowest risk for health problems related to alcohol (Hamilton and Gilmore, 2016).

Harm Reduction and Damp January.

The term “success” in the reviewed studies typically referred to participants who abstained from alcohol for the entire month of January. A recently published cross-sectional study found that Dry January participants whose goal was reduction rather than abstinence perceived their drinking as at-risk or hazardous (Lespine et al., 2024). However, a few of the reviewed longitudinal studies (de Visser et al., 2016; de Visser and Nicholls, 2020) showed that those who did not abstain for the entire month still tended to report substantial benefits one month later, including significantly improved mental well-being and increased self-efficacy in resisting social and emotional drinking pressures. Six months after participating, those same individuals reported decreased drinking frequency, reduced drunkenness, and lower alcohol consumption (de Visser et al., 2016; de Visser and Nicholls, 2020) suggesting important harm reduction effects. Recently, the term 'Damp January' has gained popularity (Dara, 2023; Blum, 2024), referring to the idea of reducing alcohol consumption during January without the requirement to completely abstain. Studies should investigate whether reductions in drinking persist over a longer period among those who did not completely abstain during Dry January, and whether framing a campaign in harm reduction terms such as by using the name “Damp January” promotes beneficial reductions in alcohol consumption.

Experimental Designs.

The effects of participating in Dry January have been studied mostly in observational trials, which are informative yet also subject to self-selection bias and lack the experimental control to make causal attributions about effects. However, randomized controlled trials of public campaigns like Dry January are not feasible, because it is not possible to shield a control group from exposure to the campaign. We recommend the use of experimental analog studies, in which research participants are recruited and randomly assigned to participate in Dry January, or to continue drinking as usual (similar to the methods used in Field et al., 2020). Such experimental designs also could be used to test variations on Dry January implementation; for example, participants could be randomized to participate in either Dry January or Damp January. Another design could compare the standard UK-based Dry January to a culturally-adapted American version in a US sample. Recently, Esselink et al. (2024) randomized participants to either receive a self-help guide designed to teach them behavior change techniques or complete IkPas without the guide. Although they found no differences between the groups in drink refusal self-efficacy, craving, alcohol consumption, automatic behavioral responses to alcohol or likelihood of abstaining during the challenge, the study presents a helpful illustration of the experimental analog approach.

Mechanisms of Change.

There is preliminary evidence to support the plausibility of DRSE as a mechanism of change for Dry January. Two studies included in this review found that Dry January completion was associated with higher DRSE and greater DRSE at baseline was associated with greater likelihood of success (de Visser and Nicholls, 2020; de Visser and Piper, 2020). In de Visser et al. (2016), structural equation models revealed Dry January completion was associated with increases in DRSE and increases in two of the three domains of DRSE were associated with reductions in drinking. Although formal tests of mediation (i.e., tests of indirect effects) found that none of the effects of Dry January on alcohol consumption were significantly transmitted through the putative mediator of DRSE, partial support for the important role of DRSE, indicated by significant direct paths in the model, warrants continued study. Findings suggest several additional possible candidates for underlying mechanisms of effect which warrant future research. These include general self-efficacy (de Visser and Nicholls, 2020; Yeomans, 2019), social support (Field et al., 2020), and reward related attentional capture (Albertella et al., 2021). A recent systematic review suggests there is sufficient evidence to support self-efficacy and social support as mechanisms of behavior change for alcohol outcomes (Maisto et al., 2024).

Albertella et al. (2021) suggest that people with attentional bias towards alcohol cues could be directed to resources such as online Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) training to increase their likelihood of success in Dry January. In support of this suggestion, Pan et al. (2024) found that participants who were randomized to training based on CBM were more likely to successfully abstain during IkPas. In a recent commentary, Butters et al. (2023) emphasized the need to develop a deeper understanding of why Dry January is effective at reducing drinking by examining underlying mechanisms, and to use this knowledge to maximize reach by informing tailored messaging and resources.

Review Limitations

The current review had several strengths and some limitations to consider. Findings from this scoping review were largely consistent with those of de Ternay et al. (2022) in terms of the positive outcomes documented. We extended prior research by expanding upon the types of research designs, methodologies and samples included, which yielded a more comprehensive set of findings. Our review was limited to studies on UK-based Dry January; de Ternay et al. (2022) found similar positive outcomes for Dry July (Australia). Other abstinence campaigns such as Febfast (Australia), IkPas (the Netherlands), and Száraz November (Dry November, Hungary) warrant further study as their respective research literatures are relatively limited at this time. The state of the research does not yet lend itself to a meta-analysis, however this scoping review characterized the extant literature, summarized key findings, summarized strengths and limitations, and described numerous future directions for the field. Finally, we did not include critical quality evaluations of each of the included studies. Future reviews would benefit from this addition.

Conclusions

Dry January demonstrates strong promise in reducing individual-level alcohol consumption and improving psychological, physical, and biological outcomes, but it is unclear if Dry January can produce population-level effects. To enhance Dry January’s impact, the campaign should prioritize increasing rates of formal registration, given that registration is a key predictor of success, and tailor messages and resources to under-represented groups. Future research should investigate the likelihood and predictors of rebound effects, examine harm reduction messaging compared to abstinence messaging, utilize experimental designs, and examine mechanisms of change.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the first author upon reasonable request.