Examining Emailed Feedback as Boosters After a College Drinking Intervention Among Fraternities and Sororities: Rationale and Protocol for a Remote Controlled Trial (Project Greek)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: College students involved in Greek life (ie, members of fraternities and sororities) tend to engage in more high-risk alcohol use and experience more negative consequences than those not involved in Greek life. Web-based alcohol interventions, such as Alcohol eCHECKUP TO GO, have been successful in reducing alcohol use and consequences among the general college student population, but interventions targeting alcohol reduction among those involved in Greek life have had limited success. Booster emails including personalized feedback regarding descriptive norms and protective behavioral strategies have shown potential in increasing the effectiveness of web-based interventions among college drinkers. Studies are needed to determine the efficacy of these boosters among those involved in Greek life. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of booster emails sent to Greek life students who complete Alcohol eCHECKUP TO GO. Specifically, we expect that participants who receive the booster emails will reduce their alcohol consumption and related problems (primary aim 1), reduce perceived peer drinking, and increase the number of protective behavioral strategies they use over time (primary aim 2) relative to those who do not receive boosters. Contingent upon finding the emailed booster efficacious and sufficient enrollment of members from each organization, an exploratory aim is to examine social mechanisms of change (ie, through selection vs socialization). METHODS: This study is a remote, controlled intervention trial following participants for up to 6 months. Participants must be aged at least 18 years, undergraduate students, and members of a participating fraternity or sorority. Eligible participants complete a web-based baseline survey to assess their alcohol consumption behaviors and beliefs, including norms and protective behavioral strategies, and information about their social networks. After completing the baseline survey, they participate in the web-based intervention. Follow-up surveys are sent 1, 3, and 6 months after the intervention. Those in the booster condition also receive emails containing personalized feedback at 2 weeks and 14 weeks after the intervention. Latent growth models and R-Simulation Investigation for Empirical Network Analysis will be used to analyze the data. RESULTS: As of September 2022, we have enrolled 18 participants from 2 fraternities and 2 sororities, and they have completed the baseline survey. Overall, 72% (13/18) of participants have completed the 1-month follow-up. Enrollment will continue through December 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of personalized feedback booster emails sent after an alcohol intervention among members of college Greek life. A secondary, exploratory aim is to provide information about social mechanisms of change (if possible). The current methodology targets whole network recruitment, with chapter presidents serving as gatekeepers and facilitators. Unique challenges of recruiting whole networks and working with campus administrators are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05107284; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05107284. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/42535.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".