Table 3.

Description of studies and study outcomes for CBIs included in the literature review: studies of interventions which used a broad theory

Intervention name/Theories or constructs used	Author, year	Setting/Participants	Intervention description (including dose)	Comparator	Primary outcomes
21 Web BASICS • Theory of Planned Behavior	Neighbors C, 2009	295 university students intending to have 2 or more drinks on their 21st birthday	Single-sessions web-based personalized feedback sent with an electronic birthday card	• Assessment only control	• Estimated blood alcohol concentration on 21st birthday*
	Neighbors C, 2012	599 university students intending to binge drink on their 21st birthday	Single-session 21st Birthday Web –BASICS, personalized feedback covering intended drinking and drinking consequences	• 21st birthday in-person BASICS • 21st birthday in-person BASICS plus friend intervention • 21st birthday web BASICS plus friend intervention • BASICS • Attention control.	• Actual alcohol consumption • Actual estimated blood alcohol concentration * • Alcohol-related consequences during 21st birthday
Alcohol 101 • Social Cognitive Theory • Theory of Reasoned Action • Transtheoretical model	Barnett NP, 2004	117 mandated violators of college alcohol policy	Alcohol 101: Single 45-minute session featuring a virtual party	• Brief, in-person motivational intervention, no booster • Brief, in-person motivational intervention, plus booster session • Alcohol 101, plus booster session	• Frequency of drinking (number of days drinking and number of heavy drinking days in the past month) • Drinks per week
	Barnett NP, 2007	225 mandated violators of college alcohol policy	Alcohol 101: Single 45 min session	• One-on-one intervention delivered by counselors trained in motivational interviewing	Past month: • Number of drinking days [3, 12 months* (CBI inferior)] • Number of heavy drinking days [3, 12 months] • Average number of drinks per drinking day [3, 12 months* (CBI inferior)] • Average estimated BAC [3, 12 months] Past 90-days: • Help seeking [3,* (CBI inferior) 12 months*] • Alcohol problems [3, 12 months]
	Carey KB, 2009	198 mandated violators of college alcohol policy	Alcohol 101 Plus: 60 min single session	• Brief motivational intervention using personalized feedback, discussion of alcohol-related consequences	• Reductions in drinking [men, women* (BMI showed greater reductions)]
	Carey KB, 2010	677 mandated violators of college alcohol policy	Alcohol 101 Plus: 60 min single session	• In-person brief motivational intervention • Alcohol Edu for Sanctions • Delayed control	• Alcohol consumption* – females but not males reduced drinking more after the BMI than after either CBI • Alcohol problems • Recidivism
	Donahue B, 2004	113 undergraduates earning academic credit	Alcohol 101: Single 45-minute session	• 30 min of cognitive behavioral therapy	• Number of drinks consumed per occasion • Number of alcoholic drinks consumed* (favoring CBT) • Number of days drinking alcohol* (favoring CBT) • Awareness of the consequences of alcohol use* • Greater reported propensity to be cautious in situations involving alcohol*
	Lau-Barraco C, 2008	217 students who had at least 2 episodes of heavy drinking in the past month, drank between 5 and 40 drinks weekly, and had no history of alcohol treatment	Alcohol 101: 90 to 120 min	• Assessment-only control • Expectancy challenge (a 90–120 min exercise in which participants drink an unknown beverage and must guess who really drank alcohol)	• Number of standard drinks per week* (favoring the expectancy challenge) • Frequency of heavy episodic drinking* (favoring the expectancy challenge) • Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire scores: global positive changes* (favoring the expectancy challenge), Social • Assertiveness sub-scale* (favoring the expectancy challenge), social and physical pleasure sub-scale, relaxation and tension reduction sub-scale, power & aggression sub-scale and sexual enhancement sub-scale
	Mastroleo NR, 2011	225 mandated violators of college alcohol policy	Alcohol 101 Plus: 60 min single session	• Brief, single-session intervention led by master’s or PhD level clinicians with or without a 25-min 1-month booster session • Alcohol 101 Plus and a 1-month 25-minutes booster session with the program	• Number of heavy drinking days [Alcohol 101 vs. brief counseling] • Average number of drinks per drinking day [Alcohol 101 vs. brief counseling] • Alcohol problems [Alcohol 101 vs. brief counseling]
	Murphy JG, 2010	74 college students recruited at a student health center	Alcohol 101 Plus: 90 min single session	• A single, face-to-face BASICS session	• Normative and self-ideal discrepancy* (favoring BASICS over Alcohol 101) • Motivation to change drinking* (favoring BASICS over Alcohol 101) • Total drinks per week • Past month frequency of heavy drinking
	Reis J, 2000	912 students 16–18 year old and 2,565 students 19–25 years old	Alcohol 101: preliminary version	• Assessment-only control (older and younger groups) • Alternative alcohol education program	• Expectations about the consequences of alcohol use (some measures*) • Self-efficacy to handle alcohol safely (some measures*) • Perceived peer norms regarding drinking [not reported]
	Sharmer L, 2001	370 undergraduates earning academic credit	Alcohol-101: 3 60-minute presentations in an interactive classroom setting	• Classrooms receiving teacher-centered motivational speech • Classrooms receiving assessment only	• Attitudes towards alcohol [4, 8,* 12 weeks] • Knowledge scores [4,* (control scored higher) 8,* (controls scored higher) 12 weeks] • Self-reported alcohol use behavior
AlcoholEdu • Expectancy theory • Social Cognitive Theory • Social Norms Theory	Croom K, 2009	3,216 incoming first-year college students	AlcoholEdu (2006 edition): An interactive 2- to 3-hour web-based alcohol prevention course presented in two parts	• Assessment only control	• Alcohol-related knowledge* • Likelihood of playing drinking games* • Likelihood of drinking alcohol • Number of drinks in past 2 weeks • Protective behaviors • Risk-related behaviors • High-risk drinking • Alcohol-related harms
	Hustad JTP, 2010	82 incoming first-year college students in fulfillment of a mandatory alcohol education requirement	AlcoholEdu and The Alcohol eCHECKUP TO GO	• Assessment only control	• Typical week alcohol consumption [eCHUG* and AlcoholEdu* vs. control] • Heavy episodic drinking [eCHUG* and AlcoholEdu* vs. control] • Typical and peak alcohol consumption [eCHUG* and AlcoholEdu* vs. control] • Alcohol-related consequences [AlcoholEdu* vs. control]
	Lovecchio CP, 2010	1,620 incoming first-year college students	AlcoholEdu, version 8.0	• Assessment only control	• Alcohol-related knowledge* • Total number of drinks consumed in past 2 weeks* • Heavy episodic drinking* • High risk alcohol behaviors • Protective alcohol behaviors • Responsible drinking behaviors (favoring control group)* • Negative drinking consequences: behavioral* and psychological • Acceptance of others’ alcohol use* and acceptance of others’ everyday alcohol use • Expectancies of alcohol use: positive* and negative;
	Paschall MJ, 2011	2,400 first-year college students at 30 universities	AlcoholEdu, version 9.0	• Assessment-only control	• Past-30-day alcohol use [Fall*, Spring] • Average number of drinks per occasion [Fall*, Spring] • Binge drinking [Fall*, Spring]
	Paschall MJ, 2011	Same as above	AlcoholEdu, version 9.0	• Assessment-only control	Reports of 7 types of alcohol-related problems: • Physiological [Fall*, Spring] • Academic [Fall, Spring] • Social [Fall*, Spring] • Driving under the influence/ riding with drinking drivers [Fall, Spring] • Aggression [Fall, Spring] • Sexual risk [Fall, Spring] • Victimization [Fall*, Spring] • All problems [Fall*, Spring]
	Wall A, 2006	3,552 members of fraternities and sororities at universities in the United States and Canada	Pre-2006 edition, version and duration not specified	• Assessment only control, post-test only	• Heavy drinking in past 2 weeks* • Negative academic consequences* • Negative physical health or work consequences • Drinking and driving* • Hangover/ mental impact* • Negative sexual consequences*
	Wall AF, 2007	20,150 college students, pre-enrollment, during enrollment, or in fulfillment of first-year requirement	AlcoholEdu (2006 edition)	• Delayed intervention control group	• academic consequences* • hangover/ mental impact* • heavy consumption days* • intentional risky behavior* • positive expectancies of alcohol use*
	Wyatt TM, 2013	14,310 first-year college students	AlcoholEdu (edition not specified)	• No control, quasi-experimental analysis of time-series data	• Substantial decreases in alcohol consumption (any consumption and heavy drinking) and alcohol- or drug-related negative consequences
Climate Schools: Alcohol Module/Alcohol and The CLIMATE Schools Combined • Social Influence Approach	Newton NC, 2009	764 13-year olds at ten secondary schools	Climate Schools: Alcohol and Cannabis prevention course (consisting of two sets of six 40 min lessons)	• Schools allocated to usual health classes	• Alcohol knowledge* • Alcohol consumption* • Alcohol expectancies • Alcohol-related harms
	Newton NC, 2009	764 13-year olds at ten secondary schools	Climate Schools: Alcohol (consisting of a set of six 40-minute lessons)	• Schools allocated to usual classes	• Alcohol knowledge [immediate,* 6-month follow-up*] • Alcohol use [immediate,* 6-month follow-up] • Alcohol expectancies [immediate, 6-month follow-up] • Frequency of drinking to excess [immediate, 6-month follow-up] • Alcohol-related harms [immediate, 6-month follow-up]
	Newton NC, 2010	764 13-year olds at ten secondary schools	Climate Schools: Alcohol (consisting of a set of six 40-minute lessons)	• Schools allocated to usual health classes	At 12-months: • Alcohol knowledge* • Average weekly alcohol consumption* • Frequency of drinking to excess* • Alcohol expectancies • Alcohol-related harms
	Vogl L, 2009	1,466 13-year-old, eighth-grade students	CLIMATE Schools: Alcohol (six lessons)	• Schools allocated to usual classes	• Alcohol knowledge* • Positive social expectancies of alcohol use* • Alcohol consumption [females,* males] • Alcohol-related harms [females,* males] • Frequency of binge drinking [females,* males]
College Alc • Problem Behavior Theory • Theory of Planned Behavior	Bersamin M, 2007	622 incoming first-year students	5-unit, 3-hour course including graphics and text, interactive animations, online assignments, readings, quizzes and video clips	• Assessment-only control	• Frequency of heavy drinking [baseline drinkers,* baseline non-drinkers] • Felt drunk [baseline drinkers,* baseline nondrinkers] • Alcohol-related consequences [baseline drinkers,* baseline non-drinkers]
	Paschall MJ 2006	370 incoming first-year students	Same as above	• Assessment-only control	At the end of the fall semester: • Alcohol-related knowledge* • Positive attitudes toward alcohol use* • Alcohol use • Heavy drinking • Alcohol-related problems • Alcohol expectancies (positive and negative) • Normative beliefs • Intentions to use harm-minimization approaches*
	Wyrick DL, 2005	65 college students, for academic credit	Same as above	Pre- vs. post-test design (no control)	• Normative alcohol beliefs* • Alcohol expectancies* • Alcohol-related attitudes • Heavy alcohol use • Problems associated with alcohol use*
Check Your Drinking • Social Norms Theory	Cunningham JA, 2012	425 college students meeting criteria for risky drinking	Check Your Drinking (University Edition) including national norms for age, gender and country of origin (US and Canada) and information on caloric content and impact on weight of alcohol	• Controls not provided access to Check Your Drinking	• AUDIT-C scores at 6-week follow-up* • 18 % of study participants randomized to receive the intervention reported using it
	Doumas DM, 2008	59 first-year student athletes in NCAA division 1	15 min Web-based program (an earlier version of Check Your Drinking)	• Online education (15 min on an educational Web page)	• Alcohol consumption [high risk drinkers,* low risk drinkers] • Perceptions of peer drinking [high risk drinkers,* low risk drinkers]
	Doumas DM, 2009	76 mandated violators of a university alcohol or drug policy	15 min Web-based program	• Alcohol module of The Judicial Educator	At 30-day follow-up: • Weekly drinking quantity* • Peak alcohol consumption* • Frequency of drinking to intoxication* • Estimates of peer drinking* • Alcohol-related problems
eCHECKUP TO GO (eCHUG) • Expectancy theory • Social Norms Theory	Alfonso J, 2013	173 mandated violators of college alcohol policy	A 10–15 min single session self-directed online module	Personalized feedback delivered face-to-face: • Individually • In groups	• Alcohol use (no between group differences) • Alcohol-related harms (no between group differences, significant reductions over time in CHUG group)
	Doumas DM, 2014	513 9th graders	eCHECKUP TO GO for high school students, 30-minute module	• A school that received assessment only	• Quantity of weekly drinking • Drinking frequency * • Alcohol-related consequences* • Positive alcohol expectancies* • Positive beliefs about alcohol* • Normative beliefs regarding peer drinking
	Doumas DM, 2009	80 first-year college students participating in a voluntary orientation seminar	A 10–15 min single session self-directed online module	• Assessment-only control	• Weekly drinking quantity [high risk students,* low risk students] • Frequency of drinking to intoxication [high risk students,* low risk students] • Alcohol-related problems [high risk students,* low risk students]
	Hustad JTP, 2010	See entry for this study under AlcoholEdu	--	--	--
	Murphy JG, 2010	207 college students enrolled in introductory courses reporting at least one past-month heavy drinking episode	eCHECKUP TO GO, used for approximately 40 min	• A single, face-to-face BASICS session • Assessment-only control	• Normative discrepancy • Self-ideal discrepancy * (favoring BASICS) • Motivation to change drinking • Total drinks per week* (favoring BASICS) • Past month frequency of heavy drinking* (favoring BASICS)
	Walters ST, 2007	106 first-year, heavy drinking college students	Standard eCHECKUP TO GO, duration not described	• Assessment-only control	Among those who reported at least one heavy drinking episode in the past month: • Drinks per week [8 weeks,* 16 weeks] • Peak blood alcohol level [8 weeks,* 16 weeks] • Alcohol-related consequences [8 weeks, 16 weeks] • Perceived drinking norms [8 weeks,* 16 weeks]
	Walters ST, 2009	279 college students who reported at least one heavy-drinking episode	Web-based personalized feedback modified from the electronic-Check-Up to Go	• a single motivational interviewing (MI) session without feedback • a single MI session with feedback • assessment only	• Drinks per week [MI with feedback significantly better than Web-based feedback at 3 and 6 months] • Peak blood alcohol content [MI with feedback significantly better than Web-based feedback at 3 and 6 months] • Alcohol-related problems [MI with feedback significantly better than Web-based feedback at 3 and 6 months]
Lifeskills Training CD-ROM • Social Learning Theory • Problem Behavior Theory • Self-derogation theory • Peer cluster theories	Williams C, 2005	123 sixth and seventh graders completing the program at home over summer break	10 sessions	• Assessment-only control	• Substance use frequency • Pro-drug attitudes* • Normative expectations for peer and adult substance use* • Anxiety reduction skills* • Relaxation skills knowledge*
Michigan Prevention and Alcohol Safety for Students (M-PASS) • Health Belief Model • Precaution Adoption Process Model • Theory of Planned Behavior • Transtheoretical Model	Bingham C, 2010	1,137 first-year college students	4 10- to 15-minute interactive online Sessions	• Assessment-only controls designated by dormitory	• Advanced stages of change* • Tolerance of drinking and drink/driving* • Reasons to drink reported* • Use of strategies to avoid at-risk drinking*
	Bingham C, 2011	Same as above	Same as above	Same as above	At 3-month follow-up: • Frequency/quantity of alcohol use* • Binge drinking* • Frequency of riding with a drink driver* • Using strategies to avoid high-risk drinking* • Frequency of drink-driving • Stages of change* • Tolerance of drinking • Reasons to drink* • Reasons not to drink* • Tolerance of drink driving*
PAS [Prevention of alcohol use in students] • Theory of planned behavior • Social cognitive theory	Koning IM, 2009	3,490 first-year high school students and their parents at school and school events	4 digital, classroom-based lessons plus a printed booster lesson a year later	• Parent intervention • Parent intervention combined with student CBI • Standard alcohol education curriculum	• Incidence of (heavy) weekly alcohol use [10 and 22 months] • Frequency of monthly drinking [10 and 22 months]
Project Fitness • Behavior-Image Model (which is supported by Prospect Theory)	Moore MJ, 2012	200 students approached in a university’s common areas	Single 20-minute session on 7 health behaviors including alcohol use, that asks screening questions and provides gain-framed messages about healthy choices	• Assessment-only control	Immediately following intervention: • Alcohol intentions* • Alcohol prototype image [perceived similarity to those who drink]* • Willingness to be seen as someone who drinks a lot* • Alcohol behavior coupling [whether alcohol is perceived to interfere with other health behaviors] • Alcohol social norms*
Reach Out Central • Elaboration likelihood model • Social Cognitive Theory	Shandley K, 2010	266 18–25 year olds playing independently, recruited through online advertisements or invitations from secondary school teachers and university lecturers	An open-ended web-based interactive game in which a character explores and interacts with a virtual environment, no set length	• Pre-, post-evaluation with 2-month follow-up	• Alcohol use [females*, males] • Use of coping strategies [females*, males] • Psychological distress [females*, males] • Resilience and satisfaction with life [females*, males] • Mental health literacy [females*, males*] • Help-seeking [females*, males*]
RealTeen • Social Learning Theory	Schwinn TM, 2010	236 13- and 14-year-old girls recruited through a youth-oriented web site	A homepage (offering features accessible at any time) and 12 intervention sessions taking about 25-minutes each	• Assessment-only control	• Alcohol use [post-test, 6-month follow-up*] • Marijuana use [post-test, 6-month follow-up*] • Poly drug use [post-test, 6-month follow-up*] • Total substance use (alcohol and drugs) [post-test, 6-month follow-up*]
What Do You Drink • I-change Model (integration of several approaches including Fishbein-Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action, TTM and Social Learning Theory) • Social Cognitive Theory	Voogt CV, 2013	907 18- to 24-year olds reporting heavy drinking in the past 6 months and motivation to change their alcohol use	A brief online intervention including personalized normative feedback, a segment in which participants set a goal for their drinking, and a portion on refusal strategies	• Assessment-only control	• Weekly alcohol consumption [1 month, 6 months] • Frequency of binge drinking [1 month, 6 months] • Heavy drinking [1 month, 6 months]
	Voogt CV, 2014	Same as above	Same as above	• Assessment-only control	• Drinking refusal self-efficacy*
Your Decisions Count– Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs • Transtheoretical Model	Evers KE, 2012	1,590 students in grades 6–9 who reported having ever using alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or other drugs	Three 30-minutes internet-based modules	• Assessment-only control	• Percentage of “ever-users” who were using alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other drugs [3 months,* 14 months] • Likelihood of moving into action/maintenance stage of change [3 months,* 14 months] • Post-test Cessation Rates Among current substance users [3 months,* 14 months]
No name [Asian-American Mother Daughter Intervention] • Family interaction theory	Fang L, 2010	108 Asian–American girls aged 10–14 years and their mothers recruited online or through community service agencies	9-session web-based substance use prevention program with each session taking about 45 min	• Assessment-only control	1-year follow-up: • Depressed mood* • Self-efficacy and refusal skills* • Levels of mother–daughter closeness* • Mother–daughter communication* • Maternal monitoring * • Family rules against substance use* • Instances of alcohol, marijuana, and illicit prescription drug use* • Intentions to use substances in the future*
	Fang L, 2013	Same as above	Same as above	• Assessment-only control	2-year follow-up: • Depressed mood • Self-efficacy and refusal skills* • Levels of mother–daughter closeness* • Mother–daughter communication* • Maternal monitoring * • Family rules against substance use* • Instances of alcohol, marijuana, and illicit prescription drug use* • Intentions to use substances in the future* • Substance use normative beliefs • Body esteem
No name [Black and hispanic mother-daughter intervention] • Attachment Theory • Deviant behavior proneness theory • Family interaction theory • Social Learning Theory	Schinke S, 2011	546 pairs of girls ages 10 to 13 and their mothers from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut recruited from postings on craigslist.org and advertisements in New York City newspapers	10 sessions with varying completion times amongst the participants	• Assessment-only control	• Mother-daughter communication [reported by daughter,* reported by mother] • Perceptions of family rules against substance use [reported by daughter,* reported by mother] • Perceptions of parental monitoring of extracurricular activities, whereabouts, and friends [reported by daughter,* reported by mother] • Daughters’ normative beliefs about peer substance use* • Depression among daughters* • Self-efficacy to avoid alcohol, tobacco and drug use among daughters * • Alcohol use among daughters * • Daughters’ intentions to smoke, drink, and use drugs when they are adults*
No name [College freshman intervention] • Social Comparison Theory • Social Identity Theory • Social Impact Theory	Lewis MA, 2007	316 college students in psychology classes who indicated at least one heavy drinking episode	After a baseline survey, gender-specific or gender-neutral personalized feedback provided on screen and as a print-out	• Assessment-only control	• Overall alcohol consumption* • Average number of drinks consumed/past month • Typical number of drinks consumed/occasion* • Typical drinking frequency*
	Lewis MA, 2007	185 first-year college students reporting at least one heavy-drinking episode in the past month	Same as above	• Assessment-only control	• Perceived same-sex norms surrounding drinking behavior [gender-specific PNF*, gender-neutral PNF] • Perceived gender-neutral norms surrounding drinking behavior [gender-specific PNF*, gender-neutral PNF*] • Drinks per week [gender-specific PNF,* gender-neutral PNF] • Drinking frequency [gender-specific PNF*, gender-neutral PNF*]
No name [E-newsletter intervention] • Extended Parallel Process Model (based on Social Cognitive Theory and the Health Belief Model)	Moore MJ, 2005	116 juniors and seniors enrolled in 3 college courses aged 18 to 25 years with access to an active e-mail account	A series of 4 weekly newsletters in electronic format	• Newsletters in print format	• Past-year drinking frequency • Past 30-day drinking frequency • Quantity • Binge-drinking frequency • Get “drunk” frequency • Get “drunk” quantity • Greatest number of drinks • 2-week binge-drinking frequency
No name [Laptop ER intervention] • Social Learning Theory	Gregor MA, 2003	671 patients aged 14 to 18 years presenting to the ED within 24 h after an acute minor in- jury	Single-session approximately 25 min long	• None	• Attitudes about their alcohol use*
	Maio RF, 2005	Same as above	Same as above	• Assessment-only control	• Alcohol Misuse Index scores [3 months, 12 months] • Binge-drinking episodes [3 months, 12 months]
No name [Web-based Substance Use Prevention for Adolescent Girls] • Family interaction theory • Self-efficacy • Manipulation subjective social norms • Cognitive behavioral therapy	Schinke S, 2009	202 girls ages 10 to 13 and their mothers from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut recruited through online or print advertising	14 computer-mediated intervention modules (duration not reported)	• Assessment-only control	At two-month follow-up: • Alcohol consumption in the past 7 days,* 30 days,* and year* • Conflict management and alcohol-use refusal skills* • Mother-daughter communication skills* • Daughters’ report of parental monitoring and rule setting* • Normative beliefs about underage drinking* • Self-efficacy about their ability to avoid underage drinking* • Intentions to drink as adults* • Mother-daughter communication skills [reported by daughters*, reported by mothers*] • Parental monitoring and rule setting [reported by daughters,* reported by mothers*]
	Schinke S, 2009	916 girls 11 to 13 and their mothers from New York, New Jersey recruited through radio, print, internet and public transit advertising	9 computer-mediated intervention modules, each taking approximately 45 min	• Assessment-only control	At two-year follow-up: • Alcohol consumption in the past 30 days [immediate follow-up, 1 year follow-up*]
	Schinke S, 2009	591 girls 11 to 13 and their mothers from New York, New Jersey recruited through radio, print, internet and public transit advertising	Same as above	• Assessment-only control	At one-year follow-up: • Alcohol consumption in the past 30 days [2 year follow-up*]

Asterisk indicates intervention outcomes for which statistically significant inter-group differences were found