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

2. 1 Belgium

3. 2 Antwerp

4. 3 Drinking behaviour in Belgium Alcohol consumption in 2003*: Belgium: 14th in world – 8,8 l UK: 7th in world – 9,6 l Beer consumption: Belgium: 7th place *World drink trends, 2003

5. 4 Students in Antwerp  5,500 students  97% ever drunk alcohol  Binge drinking (>5 dr/occasion) male: 2,0% daily  high risk for problematic alcohol use : 10,3-11,1% of male students 1,8-6,2% of female students

6. 5 www.eentjeteveel.be

7. 6 Research questions How is an electronic SBI received in a student population? Who is reached by the intervention? What are the experiences of students with the intervention? How can the intervention motivate students who show risk for problematic alcohol use to think about their alcohol use and to change their drinking behaviour?

8. 7 Qualitative research method Experiences of users! UNEXPLORED Focus group discussions

9. 8 Intervention Brief intervention Website 24h/7d Personalised electronic feedback Behaviour change Aimed at college students

10. 9 Results 10.5% per institution 3,528 students 54.6% male  45.8% in general student population High risk: male > female* *Van Hal et al, 2007

11. 10 Results AUDIT- high risk unique visits: 18.1% repeated visits: 29.0% Students in high risk groups are more likely to do the test again « a shocking result can stimulate one to do more tests » Underestimation

12. 11 Results High risk VS low risk no referral: 73.9-84.7 info: 20.3-13.3 referral: 5.8-2.0 Students in high risk group are more likely to choose for referral « …it made me think whether to take another drink or not. »

13. 12 Results Alcohol use of others Friend as help Internet suited for information on issue Intervention suited for certain group of drinkers « for someone who has the feeling ‘it’s maybe a bit too much now’, the website can have an influence. »

14. 13 Results Appearance: influence?* no results further research *Walters, 2005 Content: influence?* *Bewick, 2008. A systematic review

15. 14 Conclusion Well received threshold attention High risk groups To think about alcohol use Misperceptions

16. 15 Current and future research Alcohol in traffic alcohol tester Alcohol and drug policy in Antwerp students’ opinions RCT

17. 16 Thank you very much for your attention! Are there any questions? www.eentjeteveel.be