title: Feasibility and user perception of a fully automated push-based multiple-session alcohol intervention for university students: randomized controlled trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In recent years, many electronic health behavior interventions have been developed in order to reach individuals with unhealthy behaviors, such as risky drinking. This is especially relevant for university students, many of whom are risky drinkers.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This study explored the acceptability and feasibility in a nontreatment-seeking group of university students (including both risk and nonrisk drinkers), of a fully automated, push-based, multiple-session, alcohol intervention, comparing two modes of delivery by randomizing participants to receive the intervention either by SMS text messaging (short message service, SMS) or by email.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 5499 students at Luleå University in northern Sweden were invited to participate in a single-session alcohol assessment and feedback intervention; 28.04% (1542/5499) students completed this part of the study. In total, 29.44% (454/1542) of those participating in the single-session intervention accepted to participate further in the extended multiple-session intervention lasting for 4 weeks. The students were randomized to receive the intervention messages via SMS or email. A follow-up questionnaire was sent immediately after the intervention and 52.9% (240/454) responded.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No difference was seen regarding satisfaction with the length and frequency of the intervention, regardless of the mode of delivery. Approximately 15% in both the SMS (19/136) and email groups (15/104) would have preferred the other mode of delivery. On the other hand, more students in the SMS group (46/229, 20.1%) stopped participating in the intervention during the 4-week period compared with the email group (10/193, 5.2%). Most students in both groups expressed satisfaction with the content of the messages and would recommend the intervention to a fellow student in need of reducing drinking. A striking difference was seen regarding when a message was read; 88.2% (120/136) of the SMS group read the messages within 1 hour in contrast to 45.2% (47/104) in the email group. In addition, 83.1% (113/136) in the SMS group stated that they read all or almost all the messages, compared with only 63.5% (66/104) in the email group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Based on the feedback from the students, an extended, multiple-session, push-based intervention seems to be a feasible option for students interested in additional support after a single-session alcohol intervention. SMS as a mode of delivery seems to have some advantages over email regarding when a message is read and the proportion of messages read. However, more students in the SMS group stopped the intervention than in the email group. Based on these promising findings, further studies comparing the effectiveness of single-session interventions with extended multiple-session interventions delivered separately or in combination are warranted.
authors.affiliation: Technical Faculty, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
authors.forename: Marcus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bendtsen
authors.forename: Preben
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Bendtsen
keywords: SMS; alcohol intervention; email; multiple-session intervention; push-based intervention; students; text messages
references.citation: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2012 Sep 12;7:40
references.pmid: 22967716
references.citation: Alcohol Alcohol. 2009 Jul-Aug;44(4):423-8
references.pmid: 19482879
references.citation: BMC Res Notes. 2014 Jan 04;7:4
references.pmid: 24387293
references.citation: Lancet. 2009 Jun 27;373(9682):2223-33
references.pmid: 19560604
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2009 Jan 13;11(1):e1
references.pmid: 19141433
references.citation: Lancet. 2011 Jul 2;378(9785):49-55
references.pmid: 21722952
references.citation: Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2224-60
references.pmid: 23245609
references.citation: Addiction. 2009 Nov;104(11):1807-19
references.pmid: 19744139
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2012 Oct 31;14(5):e142
references.pmid: 23113955
references.citation: BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 25;13:1011
references.pmid: 24160674
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2011 Jun 30;13(2):e42
references.pmid: 21719411
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011 Mar 09;6(3):e14740
references.pmid: 21408060
references.citation: Scand J Prim Health Care. 2006 Mar;24(1):5-15
references.pmid: 16464809
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2008 Nov 19;10(4):e43
references.pmid: 19019818
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2010 Feb 17;12(1):e4
references.pmid: 20164043
references.citation: Am J Prev Med. 2009 Feb;36(2):165-73
references.pmid: 19135907
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001363
references.pmid: 23458994
references.citation: Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009 May;28(3):301-23
references.pmid: 19489992
references.citation: Telemed J E Health. 2009 Apr;15(3):231-40
references.pmid: 19382860
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2009 Sep 14;169(16):1508-14
references.pmid: 19752409
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2012 Jul 27;14(4):e96
references.pmid: 22842775
references.citation: Addict Behav. 2011 Jun;36(6):654-659
references.pmid: 21316157
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2010 Dec 19;12(5):e62
references.pmid: 21169175
references.citation: Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Dec;32(8):690-703
references.pmid: 23022767
references.citation: Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Nov;203(5):334-40
references.pmid: 24072758
references.citation: Addict Behav. 2010 Nov;35(11):913-24
references.pmid: 20624671
references.citation: Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012 Mar;36(3):552-60
references.pmid: 22168137
references.citation: Addiction. 2011 Feb;106(2):267-82
references.pmid: 21083832
references.citation: Epidemiol Rev. 2010;32:56-69
references.pmid: 20354039
references.citation: Am J Prev Med. 2011 Sep;41(3):300-8
references.pmid: 21855745