Table 3:

Main effects of timing and bridging strategy among students randomized to any API (secondary aim, N=591)

Main effects of Stage 1: timing of universal intervention
	Ratio of follow-up 1 to baseline				Ratio of follow-up 2 to baseline
	Early R/OR (SE)	Late R/OR (SE)	Ratio of ratios (95% CI)	P- value	Early R/OR (SE)	Late R/OR (SE)	Ratio of ratios (95% CI)	P-value
Primary outcomes
Binge drinking frequency (R)	1.84 (0.21)	1.58 (0.19)	1.17 (0.84, 1.61)	0.347	2.87 (0.35)	2.10 (0.24)	1.36 (0.99, 1.88)	0.059
Secondary outcomes
Alcohol consequences (R)	1.62 (0.13)	1.65 (0.13)	0.98 (0.79, 1.23)	0.876	0.89 (0.10)	0.89 (0.12)	1.00 (0.70, 1.43)	1.000
Health services utilization (OR)	1.96 (0.31)	1.97 (0.32)	0.99 (0.63, 1.58)	0.980	1.21 (0.19)	1.52 (0.25)	0.80 (0.52, 1.22)	0.297
Main effects of Stage 2: selective bridging strategy to indicated interventions
	Ratio of follow-up 1 to baseline				Ratio of follow-up 2 to baseline
	Coach R/OR (SE)	Email R/OR (SE)	Ratio of ratios (95% CI)	P- value	Coach R/OR (SE)	Email R/OR (SE)	Ratio of ratios (95% CI)	P-value
Primary outcomes
Binge drinking frequency (R)	1.79 (0.18)	1.62 (0.17)	1.11 (0.87, 1.40)	0.409	2.53 (0.27)	2.38 (0.23)	1.06 (0.84, 1.33)	0.610
Secondary outcomes
Alcohol consequences (R)	1.65 (0.11)	1.63 (0.11)	1.01 (0.87, 1.18)	0.884	0.91 (0.09)	0.87 (0.10)	1.04 (0.82, 1.33)	0.721
Health services utilization (OR)	1.86 (0.23)	2.08 (0.27)	0.89 (0.71, 1.12)	0.334	1.17 (0.15)	1.58 (0.22)	0.74 (0.59, 0.94)	0.014

Note: Ratios (R) and odds ratios (OR) are shown for log-link and logit-link models, respectively. P-values test the null hypothesis of no difference between groups or, equivalently, that the ratio of ratios is 1.