Examining the role of a brief online alcohol use risk feedback on accessing information about available treatment resources for alcohol issues
Abstract
Research suggests college-aged young adults are hesitant to seek treatment for alcohol use disorder and highlights barriers contributing to a gap in treatment utilization. One barrier to treatment utilization is the lack of information about available treatment resources. Motivated by the literature on web-based screening and brief interventions (eSBIs), the current study examined whether providing a brief online feedback of one's alcohol use risk severity will make college students more likely to access information about available treatment options for alcohol-related issues. College students (N = 724) who responded to the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001) were randomly assigned to receive a brief online feedback on their alcohol use risk or to a no-feedback condition. Overall, only 20% of all participants opted to view available treatment services for alcohol issues. Participants in the feedback group (15%) were significantly less likely to view information for available services compared to the no-feedback group (24%). A significant feedback condition x stigma interaction effect was found, such that those with average and high stigma towards substance use scores were less likely to view treatment information when provided feedback. Without a thorough discussion of individual risks and without the safeguards against psychological reactance present in eSBIs, providing college students with brief online feedback about their alcohol use risk severity made them less likely to access information concerning available on-campus mental health resources for alcohol issues. On the other hand, improving help-seeking attitudes could help increase treatment utilization.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other studies providing local resources found mixed findings on help-seeking attitudes, intentions and behaviour.
“other studies (22, 33, 34) providing local resources found mixed findings on help-seeking attitudes, intentions and behaviour.”
From The impact of digital interventions on help-seeking behaviour for mental health problems: a systematic literature review (2022) · cites this paper as [34]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 4
- Authors
- Tuliao, A. P., Mullet, N. D., Hawkins, L. G., Holyoak, D., Weerts, M., & Gudenrath, T.
- Affiliations
- Texas Tech University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tuliao, Antover P.
- Venue
- Addictive Behaviors
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 96
- Pages
- 164-170
- ISSN
- 0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2944733044
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 0.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- alcoholism, university students, treatment utilization, help-seeking attitudes, stigma, reactance, auditing
- MeSH terms
- Help-Seeking Behavior, Alcohol Drinking in College, Internet-Based Intervention, Adolescent, Alcohol Drinking, Alcoholism, Feedback, Female, Humans, Male, Students, Risk Assessment, Young Adult, Social Stigma
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review