The “Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol” (ORBITAL) Core Outcome Set: International Consensus on Outcomes to Measure in Efficacy and Effectiveness Trials of Alcohol Brief Interventions

Effectiveness of web-based personalised feedback interventions for reducing alcohol consumption among university students: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ISSUES

Meta-analysis was conducted to examine standalone web-based personalised feedback interventions (PFI) delivered in non-structured settings for reducing university students' alcohol consumption. Subgroup analyses by gender-focus, type-of-content and accessibility were conducted. Characteristics of the sample, the intervention and study quality were examined as moderators.

APPROACH

Ten databases were searched from 2000 to 2023. Eligible articles involved only randomised controlled trials. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the effect size on weekly alcohol consumption comparing web-PFIs and non-active controls. Meta-regressions were applied to explore effect moderators.

KEY FINDINGS

Thirty-one studies were included in the narrative synthesis, 25 of which were meta-analysed. Results found significant effect size differences on weekly alcohol consumption in favour of the intervention group in the short- (SMD = 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06, 0.15) and long-term period (SMD = 0.09, 95% CI 0.02, 0.15). Subgroup analyses identified that interventions which were gender-specific, multicomponent and had unlimited access had higher and significant effect sizes, although they were very similar with respect to comparative groups. Moderator analyses showed that times feedback was accessed significantly contributed to the effectiveness of the intervention. Effects diminished over time, although they remained significant.

IMPLICATIONS

The meta-analysis evidences the effectiveness of web-PFI for addressing university students' alcohol use, decreasing by 1.65 and 1.54 drinks consumed per week in the short- and long-term, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results offer empirical evidence that supports the significant, although small, effect of web-PFI delivered remotely in universities. Future research should focus on increasing their impact by introducing booster sessions and content components based on students' preferences.

Effects of a single session low-threshold digital intervention for procrastination behaviors among university students (Focus): Findings from a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Procrastination behaviors are common among university students, and have been found to be associated with stress, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and poorer academic performance. There is a need for interventions that can reach students at scale, and therefore this study aimed to estimate the effects of a single session low-threshold digital intervention (Focus) for procrastination behaviors among university students in Sweden.

Methods and analysis

A two-arm, parallel groups (1:1), single blind randomized controlled trial was conducted between February 8 to April 26, 2023. The study used email to invite university students across Sweden to participate in the trial. Both the intervention and the control group were invited to assess their current procrastination behaviors using the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS). The intervention group immediately received feedback and behavior change advice by means of an interactive website, while the control group was shown their total PPS score without any further feedback. Students were included in the study if they scored 20 points or more on the PPS. Our primary outcome was procrastination behavior measured at 2 months post-randomization. Analyses were conducted using multilevel regression models estimated with Bayesian inference.

Results

A total of 2209 participants (intervention: 1109, control: 1100) were randomized. The average age of participants was 26.4 years (SD = 7.8) and 65 % were women (n = 1442). The mean PPS score at baseline was 35.6 points (of a maximum of 60). Primary outcome data were available for 45 % (n = 498) of the intervention group and 55 % (n = 601) of the control group. The evidence suggested no marked difference between groups regarding any of the outcomes, although there was weak evidence of lower physical activity in the intervention group. Qualitative findings from open-ended responses uncovered a variety of views on procrastination and perceived problems that may follow. Those not feeling supported by Focus explained having troubles adopting the advice given and converting their intentions into action without more continuous support.

Conclusions

Access to a single session of feedback and behavior change advice by means of an interactive website did not produce differential self-reported procrastination among university students who took the opportunity to self-assess their behaviors. The findings are limited by assessment reactivity due to screening at baseline and attrition to follow-up.

The effectiveness of a brief intervention for intensive care unit patients with hazardous alcohol use: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Screening for hazardous alcohol use and performing brief interventions (BIs) are recommended to reduce alcohol-related negative health consequences. We aimed to compare the effectiveness (defined as an at least 10% absolute difference) of BI with usual care in reducing alcohol intake in intensive care unit survivors with history of hazardous alcohol use.

METHODS

We used Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) score to assess history of alcohol use.

PATIENTS

Emergency admitted adult ICU patients in three Finnish university hospitals, with an AUDIT-C score > 5 (women), or > 6 (men). We randomized consenting eligible patients to receive a BI or treatment as usual (TAU).

INTERVENTION

BI was delivered by the time of ICU discharge or shortly thereafter in the hospital ward.

CONTROLS

Control patients received TAU.

OUTCOME

The primary outcome was self-reported alcohol consumption during the preceding week 6 and 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were the change in AUDIT-C scores from baseline to 6 and 12 months, health-related quality of life, and mortality. The trial was terminated early due to slow recruitment during the pandemic.

RESULTS

We randomized 234 patients to receive BI (N = 117) or TAU (N = 117). At 6 months, the median alcohol intake in the BI and TAU groups were 6.5 g (interquartile range [IQR] 0-141) and 0 g (0-72), respectively (p = 0.544). At 12 months, it was 24 g (0-146) and 0 g (0-96) in the BI and TAU groups, respectively (p = 0.157). Median change in AUDIT-C from baseline to 6 months was - 1 (- 4 to 0) and 2 (- 6 to 0), (p = 0.144) in the BI and TAU groups, and to 12 months - 3 (- 5 to - 1) and - 4 (- 7 to - 1), respectively (p = 0.187). In total, 4% (n = 5) of patients in the BI group and 11% (n = 13) of patients in the TAU group were abstinent at 6 months, and 10% (n = 12) and 15% (n = 17), respectively, at 12 months. No between-groups difference in mortality emerged.

CONCLUSION

As underpowered, our study cannot reject or confirm the hypothesis that a single BI early after critical illness is effective in reducing the amount of alcohol consumed compared to TAU. However, a considerable number in both groups reduced their alcohol consumption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03047577).

An International, Multidisciplinary Consensus Set of Patient-Centered Outcome Measures for Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders

Background: In 1990, the United States' Institute of Medicine promoted the principles of outcomes monitoring in the alcohol and other drugs treatment field to improve the evidence synthesis and quality of research. While various national outcome measures have been developed and employed, no global consensus on standard measurement has been agreed for addiction. It is thus timely to build an international consensus. Convened by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), an international, multi-disciplinary working group reviewed the existing literature and reached consensus for a globally applicable minimum set of outcome measures for people who seek treatment for addiction. Methods: To this end, 26 addiction experts from 11 countries and 5 continents, including people with lived experience (n = 5; 19%), convened over 16 months (December 2018-March 2020) to develop recommendations for a minimum set of outcome measures. A structured, consensus-building, modified Delphi process was employed. Evidence-based proposals for the minimum set of measures were generated and discussed across eight videoconferences and in a subsequent structured online consultation. The resulting set was reviewed by 123 professionals and 34 people with lived experience internationally. Results: The final consensus-based recommendation includes alcohol, substance, and tobacco use disorders, as well as gambling and gaming disorders in people aged 12 years and older. Recommended outcome domains are frequency and quantity of addictive disorders, symptom burden, health-related quality of life, global functioning, psychosocial functioning, and overall physical and mental health and wellbeing. Standard case-mix (moderator) variables and measurement time points are also recommended. Conclusions: Use of consistent and meaningful outcome measurement facilitates carer-patient relations, shared decision-making, service improvement, benchmarking, and evidence synthesis for the evaluation of addiction treatment services and the dissemination of best practices. The consensus set of recommended outcomes is freely available for adoption in healthcare settings globally.

Stakeholder-Informed Solutions To Address Barriers for Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Thai Hypertension Care

Premature deaths from NCDs disproportionately affect people in low- and middle-income countries. Since alcohol use is one of the most common causes of reversible hypertension, interventions targeting alcohol use may be a feasible and effective low-cost approach to synergistically reduce the prevalence of harmful drinking and high blood pressure. This study sought to identify key factors in successfully implementing alcohol use screening and brief intervention in hypertension care in Thailand. For this purpose, we surveyed participants (NRound 1 = 91, NRound 2 = 27) from three different groups of Thai stakeholders (policy- and decisionmakers, primary healthcare practitioners, and patients diagnosed with hypertension) in a two-round stakeholder elicitation. In round 1, we identified limited resources, lack of clear guidelines for lifestyle intervention, stigmatization, and inconsistent monitoring of patients' alcohol use as important barriers. In round 2, we sought to elicit solutions for the barriers identified in round 1. While stakeholders emphasized the need for adaptability to existing realities in Thai primary healthcare such as a high workload and limited digitization, they favorably evaluated a digital alcohol assessment tool with integrated, tailored advice for brief intervention as a potential scalable solution. Findings suggest that as one possible route to reduce the NCD burden caused by hypertension in Thailand, primary healthcare services may be enhanced by digital tools that support resource-effective, intuitive, and seamless delivery of alcohol screening and brief intervention.

Comparative feasibility and preliminary efficacy of CBT for insomnia among adults seeking and not seeking addiction treatment

Two out of three adults seeking treatment for alcohol or other substance use disorders report co-occurring symptoms of insomnia. This study compared the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) among adults seeking and not seeking treatment for substance use. Adults with alcohol or other substance use disorders (n = 22, 32% female, 82% White; Mage  = 39.5) completed assessments at baseline, post-treatment, and at 6 week follow-up. Of those, 11 were and 11 were not enrolled in substance use treatment. All received CBT-I. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Data were analysed using repeated measures analyses of variance. In the substance use treatment group, 6/11 completed post and 5/11 completed follow-up. In the non-treatment group, 9/11 completed post and 7/11 completed follow-up. Participants in both groups reported improvements in insomnia severity, sleep onset latency, and dysfunctional beliefs about sleep, with most effects evident at post and follow-up. There was a marginal group-by-time interaction in the change in frequency of substance use, with only participants not in substance use treatment reporting decreases at follow-up. Participants in substance use treatment reported significant reductions in substance-related problems and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder over time; however, they also reported more symptoms at baseline. CBT-I produces similar reductions in insomnia but is relatively less feasible among individuals in (versus not in) treatment for substance use disorder. This may be due to the more complex logistics of accessing CBT-I among those in treatment. We speculate that integrating CBT-I into treatment for addictions may improve feasibility in this population. clinicaltrials.gov NCT04198311.

The selection of statistical models for reporting count outcomes and intervention effects in brief alcohol intervention trials: A review and recommendations

Understanding the efficacy and relative effectiveness of a brief alcohol intervention (BAI) relies on obtaining a credible intervention effect estimate. Outcomes in BAI trials are often count variables, such as the number of drinks consumed, which may be overdispersed (i.e., greater variability than expected based on a given model) and zero-inflated (i.e., greater probability of zeros than expected based on a given model). Ignoring such distribution characteristics can lead to biased estimates and invalid statistical conclusions. In this critical review, we identified and reviewed 64 articles that reported count outcomes from a systematic review of BAI trials for adolescents and young adults from 2013 to 2018. Given many statistical models to choose from when analyzing count outcomes, we reviewed the models used and reporting practices in the BAI trial literature. A majority (61.3%) of analyses with count outcomes used linear models despite violations of normality assumptions; 75.6% of outcome variables demonstrated clear overdispersion. We provide an overview of available count models (Poisson, negative binomial, zero-inflated or hurdle, and marginalized zero-inflated Poisson regression) and formulate practical guidelines for reporting outcomes of BAIs. We provide a visual step-by-step decision guide for selecting appropriate statistical models and reporting results for count outcomes. We list accessible resources to help researchers select an appropriate model with which to analyze their data. Recent advances in count distribution-based models hold promise for evaluating count outcomes to gauge the efficacy and effectiveness of BAIs and identify critical covariates in alcohol epidemiologic research. We recommend that researchers report the distributional properties of count outcomes, such as the proportion of zero counts, and select an appropriate statistical analysis for count outcomes using the provided decision tree. By following these recommendations, future research may yield more accurate, transparent, and reproducible results.

Mediators of effects of a digital alcohol intervention for online help-seekers: Findings from an effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Digital alcohol interventions have been shown to exert effects in helping individuals reduce their drinking. However, little is known about the mechanisms which mediate such effects. The objective of this study was to estimate natural direct and indirect effects of a digital alcohol intervention.

METHODS

This secondary analysis of mediated effects used data from a randomised controlled trial which included individuals with unhealthy alcohol use with access to a mobile phone aged 18 years or older in Sweden. The comparator was basic alcohol and health information. The digital intervention was centrally designed around weekly monitoring of consumption followed by feedback and tools to support behaviour change. Mediated effects were estimated using measures from 1-, 2-, and 4-months post-randomisation. Primary outcomes were total weekly consumption (TWC) and frequency of heavy episodic drinking (HED). A counterfactual framework was used to estimate three hypothesised mediators: importance, knowledge of how to change (know-how), and confidence.

RESULTS

Between 25/04/2019 and 26/11/2020, 2129 participants were randomised. The intervention improved know-how and confidence, which in turn mediated the effects on TWC and HED at 2- and 4-months. Analyses with imputed data were not markedly different.

CONCLUSIONS

A digital alcohol intervention was found to exert effects in reducing consumption by means of improving individuals' knowledge of how to reduce their consumption and confidence in their ability to reduce. The use of face-valid single item measures is a study limitation notwithstanding observed findings, as is attrition and lack of blinding of participants.

Effect of a smartphone intervention as a secondary prevention for use among university students with unhealthy alcohol use: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effects of providing access to an alcohol intervention based on a smartphone.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial..

SETTING

Four higher education institutions in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

1770 students (≥18 years) who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use (ie, a score on the alcohol use disorders identification test-consumption (AUDIT-C) of ≥4 for men and ≥3 for women) were randomly assigned by 1:1 allocation ratio in blocks of 10.

INTERVENTION

Providing access to a brief, smartphone based alcohol intervention.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome studied was number of standard drinks per week at six months and the secondary outcome was number of heavy drinking days (past 30 days). Additional outcomes were maximum number of drinks consumed on one occasion, alcohol related consequences, and academic performance. Follow-up assessments occurred at months three, six, and 12. Data were analysed by intention to treat and by using generalised linear mixed models with random intercepts for the recruitment site and participants nested within the recruitment site, and with intervention (v control), time (three months v six months; 12 months v six months), and baseline outcome values as fixed effects.

RESULTS

Between 26 April 26 2021 and 30 May 2022, 1770 participants (intervention group (n=884); control group (n=886)) were included. Mean age was 22.4 years (standard deviation 3.07); 958 (54.1%) were women; and 1169 (66.0%) were undergraduate students, 533 (30.1%) were studying for a master's degree, 43 (2.4%) were studying for a doctorate, and 25 (1.4%) were students of other higher education programme. The baseline mean number of standard drinks per week was 8.59 (standard deviation 8.18); the baseline number of heavy drinking days was 3.53 (4.02). Of 1770 participants, follow-up rates were 1706 (96.4%) at three months, 1697 (95.9%) at six months, and 1660 (93.8%) at 12 months. Of 884 students randomly assigned to the intervention group, 738 (83.5%) downloaded the smartphone application. The intervention had a significant overall effect on the number of standard drinks per week (incidence rate ratio 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.96)), heavy drinking days (0.89 (0.83 to 0.96)), and the maximum number of drinks consumed on one occasion (0.96 (0.93 to 1.00), P=0.029), indicating significantly lower drinking outcomes in the intervention group than in the control group during the follow-up period. The intervention did not affect alcohol related consequences or academic performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing access to the smartphone application throughout the 12 month follow-up was effective at limiting the average drinking volume of university students who had self-reported unhealthy alcohol use at baseline.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 10007691.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a brief digital procrastination intervention targeting university students in Sweden: study protocol for the Focus randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The concept of procrastination can be described as a conscious, yet irrational, postponement of important tasks or decisions-despite awareness that the delay may lead to negative consequences. Procrastination behaviours are common among university students and is often described as a failure of self-regulation, and the behaviour is associated with stress, symptoms of depression and anxiety, poorer academic performance and negative effects on overall health and well-being.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A two-arm, parallel groups (1:1), single-blind randomised controlled trial will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of a brief digital procrastination intervention (Focus) among university students in Sweden. The intervention consists of a screening and feedback component based on Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS) score, allowing intervention participants to assess their current procrastination behaviours and receive behaviour change advice. Participants in the control group will be shown their total PPS score without any further feedback. Monte Carlo simulations (assuming a standardised effect of 0.35 Cohen's d of the intervention on the primary outcome, to at least 80% of the time estimate a posterior probability of effect of at least 95%) indicated that data from 1000 participants are required for analysis, meaning that 2000 participants are required to be randomised when assuming a 50% attrition rate. The primary outcome will be procrastination behaviour measured at 2 months postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes will be anxiety and stress symptoms and lifestyle behaviours. Outcomes will be analysed using multilevel regression models estimated using Bayesian inference.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority on 2022-08-24 (dnr 2022-00353). Students will be asked to give informed consent before participation and after having been given information about the study. The results will be submitted for publication in open access, peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13533793.

The effect of question order on outcomes in the orbital core outcome set for alcohol brief interventions among online help-seekers (QOBCOS): Findings from a randomised factorial trial

Objective

A core outcome set (COS) has been developed in alcohol brief intervention (ABI) research through international consensus. This study aimed to estimate order effects among questions in the COS.

Methods

Individuals aged 18 or older who searched online for alcohol-related help were invited to complete the COS. The order of questions was randomised following a factorial design. Primary outcomes were order effects among the COS items and patterns of attrition.

Results

Between 21/10/2020 and 26/11/2020, we randomised 7334 participants, of which 5256 responded to at least one question and were available for analyses. Current non-drinkers were excluded. We found evidence of higher self-reported average consumption and odds of harmful and hazardous drinking was found among those who first answered questions on recent consumption and impact of alcohol use. Lower self-reported recent consumption was found among those first asked about average consumption. Quality of life (QoL) was reported lower among those who first responded to when questions on impact of alcohol use were asked first, which in turn was lower among those who first answered question on when average consumption and QoL were asked first. Attrition was lowest when average consumption was asked first, and highest when QoL or impact of alcohol use was asked first. Median completion time for the COS was 4.3 min.

Conclusions

Question order affects outcomes and attrition. If the aim is to minimize attrition, consumption measures should be asked before QoL and impact of alcohol use; however, this order impacts self-reported alcohol consumption and so researchers should be guided by study priorities. At a minimum, all participants should be asked the same questions in the same order.

Trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN17954645).

Practitioner and digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in people not seeking alcohol treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of practitioner versus digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis comprising comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials, robust screening and selection methods and appraisal with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses were conducted in Stata using random effects, frequentist models. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) tool was used to assess confidence in effect sizes.

SETTING

Online or community or health settings where the intervention was immediately accessible without referral.

PARTICIPANTS

Non treatment-seeking hazardous or harmful drinkers.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome was mean difference in alcohol consumption (g/wk); secondary outcome was number of single high intensity drinking episodes. Baseline consumption was analysed as a covariate.

FINDINGS

Of 201 included trials (94 753 participants), 152 reported a consumption outcome that could be converted to grams/week; 104 reported number of single high intensity drinking episodes. At 1 and 6 months, practitioner delivered interventions reduced consumption more than digitally delivered interventions (1 month: -23 g/wk (95% CI, -43 to -2); 6 months: -14 g/wk [95% CI, -25 to -3]). At 12 months there was no evidence of difference between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions (-6 g/wk [95% CI, -24 to 12]). There was no evidence of a difference in single high intensity drinking episodes between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions at any time point. Effect sizes were small, but could impact across a population with relatively high prevalence of hazardous and harmful drinking. Heterogeneity was a concern. Some inconsistency was indicated at 1 and 6 months, but little evidence was apparent at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Practitioner delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption are more effective than digitally delivered interventions up to 6 months; at 12 months there is no evidence of a difference.

Who Opts In to Alcohol Feedback and How Does That Impact Behavior? A Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVE

Personalized feedback interventions are effective in reducing alcohol consumption and related problems. However, little is known about the role of choice in outcomes. The current study sought to (a) characterize individuals who opt in for brief alcohol-related feedback, (b) assess participants' consistency in that choice over two time points, and (c) evaluate changes in peak alcohol consumption among those who did and did not receive feedback.

METHOD

Participants reporting past-12-month alcohol consumption were recruited through Prolific. At the outset of the survey, participants were asked if they would like to receive feedback on their drinking at the end of the survey ("opt in"). Participants at Time 1 (T1; N = 732) were 41% female, 91% White, and 8% Hispanic (mean age = 36, SD = 12.25, range: 18-80). A subset was invited back for a 30-day retest (Time 2 [T2]; n = 234).

RESULTS

Those reporting higher maximum drinks and more drug use were more likely to opt in to feedback than those with lower use. Further, 85% of participants were consistent in their choice of whether to receive feedback across T1 and T2 (κ = .65). Among heavy drinking participants with T1 and T2 data (n = 163), there was an effect of feedback on intensity of consumption at T2.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals who engage in heavy alcohol use are more likely to opt in to personalized alcohol feedback, and most do so consistently. Among heavy drinkers, feedback at T1 reduced intensity of consumption at T2, but the effect was small and requires future replication in more diverse samples.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Worldwide Alcohol Use Disorders and Brief Alcohol Interventions in the Criminal Justice System

Although the relationship is complex, there is an association between alcohol use and offending behavior with an interplay between the amount drank, the pattern of drinking and individual and contextual factors. Alcohol brief interventions have been shown to be effective in primary healthcare, however there is currently a lack of compelling evidence in the criminal justice system. We carried out a rapid systematic review of the literature, which updated our review conducted in 2016. Following systematic searches, we included 36 papers on prevalence and 13 papers on effectiveness. Between 26 and 88% of individuals in the policy custody setting scored positive for an alcohol use disorder. In the magistrates court this was 95%; 31-86% in the probation setting and between 19 and 86% in the prison system. In relation to probable dependence, between 21 and 38% of individuals were shown to have probable alcohol dependence in the police custody suite setting; 39 per cent in the magistrate court system; 17-36% in the probation setting and between 18 and 48% in the prison system. This compares to 6% in the general population. We included 13 studies of effectiveness with differing outcome measures and outcomes. We conclude more studies are needed in the field to develop the current evidence base.

Assessing alcohol use in situ: Correlates of self-report vs. objective alcohol consumption

Associations between self-report and objective measurement of young adult alcohol use are weakened by excessive consumption levels; therefore, associations between correlates of alcohol use and consumption likely also differ by alcohol measurement. This study examined the extent to which correlates of heavy drinking measured via self-report are also indicators of heavy drinking measured objectively. Data were collected from 164 bar patrons (54% male; 73% White, 12% Black, 15% Other; 15% Hispanic) as they exited the bar. Participants completed an intercept survey including self-reported measures of drinking, demographics, and social-environmental factors. A breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) reading was also obtained using a handheld breathalyzer device. Correlations between two self-reported outcomes, number of drinks consumed prior to and at the bar, and BrAC were significant among those in the lowest quartile of BrAC readings, but largely non-significant at moderate and high BrAC levels. Intention to get drunk that night was a robust predictor of alcohol consumption across self-reported outcomes and BrAC. Social factors (presence of drinking peers, witnessing drunk others) were predictive of self-reported alcohol use but not BrAC. AUDIT-C score was the only additional alcohol behavior predictive of objectively measured alcohol use. Self-reported outcomes and BrAC, as well as their association with key correlates, diverge at high levels of intoxication, when preventive intervention is most needed. Implications for further research and alcohol prevention practice are discussed.