Program Profile: Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention of College Students (BASICS)

This is a preventive intervention designed to help college students make better decisions about alcohol use. The program is rated Effective. The intervention group showed statistically significant reductions in negative consequences of drinking (for example, accidents, violence or academic problems) and peak blood alcohol content. However, findings were mixed with regard to quantities consumed, and there was no statistically significant difference between groups in frequency of drinking.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals

Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention of College Students (BASICS) is a harm-reduction intervention for college students. Students often conform to patterns of heavy drinking they see as acceptable, while holding false beliefs about alcohol’s effects or actual alcohol-use norms. BASICS is designed to help students make better decisions about using alcohol. The program’s style is empathic, rather than confrontational or judgmental. It aims to 1) reduce alcohol consumption and its adverse consequences, 2) promote healthier choices among young adults, and 3) provide important information and coping skills for reducing risk.

Target Population

BASICS is aimed at college students 18 to 24 years old who drink alcohol heavily and have experienced or are at risk for alcohol-related problems such as poor class attendance, missed assignments, accidents, sexual assault, and violence.

Program Theory

BASICS uses brief, limited interventions designed to prompt students to change their drinking patterns. Heavy drinking among students decreases as the population ages. The program is designed to prompt behavioral changes in the early years of college. The brief interventions aim to modify the participants’ responses to peers in alcohol-related situations.

Program Components

The program is conducted over the course of two 50-minute interviews. As a harm-reduction approach, BASICS aims to motivate students to reduce risky behaviors instead of targeting a specific drinking goal such as abstinence or reduced drinking. Students can be identified through routine screening or through referral from medical, housing, or disciplinary services. Before or after the first interview, the student receives a self-report questionnaire to complete. From the questionnaire and the first interview, information is gathered about the student’s alcohol consumption pattern, personal beliefs about alcohol, understanding of social alcohol norms, and family history.

The second interview, which occurs about 2 weeks after the initial interview, provides the student with personalized feedback on his or her patterns of drinking, typical and peak blood alcohol concentration, comparison of drinking patterns with other college students of the same age and gender, and level of family history of alcohol problems. Moreover, the program challenges inaccurate alcohol norms and myths about alcohol’s effects, highlights alcohol-related negative consequences, suggests ways to reduce future risks associated with alcohol use, and provides a menu of options to assist in making changes. Screening and referral for stepped-care treatment is also offered as needed.

Study 1

The Baer and colleagues (2001) study aimed to measure the long-term effects of Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention of College Students (BASICS). Their study sampled students, all under 19 years old and due to attend the University of Washington in fall 1990 (n = 4,000). The students were all sent a questionnaire in the spring preceding their matriculation to identify their levels of drinking. Fifty-one percent provided complete questionnaires and showed a willingness to participate in the study. Among the students who completed the questionnaire, a high-risk sample was identified and randomized into a control (n = 113) and a treatment group (n = 145). Another normative comparison group (n = 113) was randomly selected from the entire pool of responders. Of the high-risk sample, 55 percent were female and 84 percent were white. The normative comparison sample was 54 percent female and 78 percent white. There were no significant baseline differences between the groups. Measures were taken at baseline, at 6 months posttest, and at follow-ups at 1-year intervals for up to 4 years.

The participants in the treatment group received a single-session intervention similar to motivational interviewing. They were given personal feedback on their alcohol consumption patterns for the 2 weeks preceding the intervention. They also received information about the risk and myths associated with alcohol consumption. And they received advice and tips to reduce risks associated with drinking. The following year, participants receiving the intervention were mailed personalized feedback that analyzed their drinking. The participants identified as highest risk (n = 56) were contacted by phone to learn of concern over their drinking and were offered additional feedback.

The study measured three drinking measures, which were standardized to the normative comparative sample at baseline. Students were asked about drinking frequency, drinking quantity, and any negative consequences related to drinking such as violence, date rape, accidents, academic problems, and family conflict. The measures were analyzed using mean standardized factor scores and differences.

The study authors used mixed model analyses to examine the effects of group (experimental or control) and time (baseline and 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year follow-up) on the major outcomes (frequency, quantity, and negative consequences).

Study 2

Turrisi and colleagues (2009) studied incoming freshman at large universities in the Northeast and the Northwest, screening them during summer 2006. To be eligible the participants needed to be high school athletes transitioning to college. High school athletes transitioning to college have been previously identified as a group at high risk of alcohol use.

Participants were randomized to four conditions: a control group (n = 305), a treatment group that received BASICS (n = 228), and two other treatment groups—one that received a parent intervention (n = 279) and one that received both BASICS and the parent intervention (n = 278). Overall, participants had a mean age of 17.92 years, and 44.4 percent were male. Approximately 80 percent identified as white, 10.1 percent as Asian, 4.5 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 3.7 percent as multiracial, 2 percent as Black, 0.5 percent as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 0.2 as American Indian or Alaska Native, 3.2 percent as other, and .04 percent that did not identify race or ethnicity. There were no significant differences between groups in race or ethnicity; however, there were significantly more females in the control and BASICS groups, compared with the other intervention groups.

The BASICS intervention consisted of 1-hour one-on-one sessions with a trained peer facilitator. Participants were directed toward the computerized feedback from their baseline assessment that examined consumption patterns and behaviors. They were given information on the myths and risks associated with alcohol as well as protective behavioral strategies. The baseline and follow-up (conducted about 10 months postintervention) procedures were administered in the form of an online self-report questionnaire.

The study used intent-to-treat analyses and mean difference tests (Cohen’s d) to assess the variations in alcohol use between the groups over time. Peak blood–alcohol content was calculated, as were the quantity of drinks, during the week and at weekends.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Motivational Interviewing for Substance Abuse

A client-centered, semidirective psychological treatment approach that concentrates on improving and strengthening individuals’ motivations to change. The practice is rated Effective. Individuals in the treatment groups significantly reduced their use of substances compared to those in the no-treatment control groups.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Targeted Brief Alcohol Interventions for Alcohol Use for Adolescents and Young Adults

This practice seeks to reduce alcohol use or alcohol-related problems for adolescents and young adults via a short-term intervention (one to five sessions). The practice is rated Effective for reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problem outcomes for adolescents and young adults.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Alcohol consumption by adolescents
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Alcohol-related problems of adolescents
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Alcohol-related problems of young adults
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Alcohol consumption by young adults

Alcohol Interventions for College Students

This practice consists of interventions designed to reduce alcohol consumption in college students. Interventions can be delivered face to face or virtually and target different drinking-related behaviors, such as heavy drinking and alcohol expectancies. The practice is rated Promising for reducing alcohol consumption and reducing positive alcohol expectancies of college students.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Alcohol
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Positive alcohol expectancies

Nontargeted Brief Alcohol Interventions for Substance Use for Juveniles

The practice is aimed at reducing substance use (alcohol and other hard drugs) by providing motivations and/or skills to promote behavior change in a relatively brief time, typically between one to five sessions. The target population are juveniles and young adults ages 11 to 30. This practice is rated Effective for reducing illicit substance use, marijuana use, and alcohol use. The practice is rated Promising for reducing the use of other hard substances.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Marijuana
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Alcohol
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Other hard substances

School-Based Brief Interventions for Substance Use Among Youth

This practice consists of time-limited, low-dose therapeutic programs delivered in a school or educational setting that teach skills and encourage motivation to change or prevent substance use in youth participants. This practice is rated Effective for reducing alcohol use but was rated No Effects for reducing marijuana use.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Alcohol
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Marijuana

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?