Addictive behaviors · 2026
Examining ecological momentary assessment (EMA) alone versus EMA with personalized feedback for hazardous drinking among Korean college students.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Seunghee, Lee Mingyeong, Song Hyeonji, Lim Taesun, Zaso Michelle J, Kim Jueun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may function not only as an assessment method but possibly also an intervention strategy by increasing self-monitoring and awareness of drinking behavior. Personalized feedback (PF) integrated with EMA may further facilitate cognitive and behavioral change. This study compared the effects of EMA alone and EMA combined with PF (EMA + PF) on hazardous drinking (as assessed by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test- Consumption tool), drinking motives, and alcohol expectancies among college students.
METHODS: Participants completed a Year 1 Baseline survey and EMA comprised of 14 consecutive days of smartphone-based surveys four times a day assessing drinking, mood, hangover, and negative consequences. Participants were assigned to EMA (n = 49) or EMA + PF (n = 45) and completed another 14-day EMA in Year 2. The EMA + PF group also received a personalized feedback report on their drinking patterns, emotional states, and alcohol metabolism genetics based on Year 1 data before beginning the Year 2 EMA, as well as daily feedback throughout the Year 2 EMA.
RESULTS: Both the EMA and EMA + PF conditions showed comparable, significant but modest reductions in hazardous drinking immediately after the intervention, which were maintained at three-month follow-up. Drinking motives, particularly social and enhancement motives, were significantly lower in both conditions at the three-month follow-up but not immediately post-intervention. Alcohol expectancies did not change significantly over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Both EMA and EMA + PF related to modest reductions in hazardous drinking and drinking motives, yet personalized feedback did not provide incremental benefits over EMA alone. Efforts could explore the potential of EMA-based self-monitoring alone to reduce hazardous drinking.
METHODS: Participants completed a Year 1 Baseline survey and EMA comprised of 14 consecutive days of smartphone-based surveys four times a day assessing drinking, mood, hangover, and negative consequences. Participants were assigned to EMA (n = 49) or EMA + PF (n = 45) and completed another 14-day EMA in Year 2. The EMA + PF group also received a personalized feedback report on their drinking patterns, emotional states, and alcohol metabolism genetics based on Year 1 data before beginning the Year 2 EMA, as well as daily feedback throughout the Year 2 EMA.
RESULTS: Both the EMA and EMA + PF conditions showed comparable, significant but modest reductions in hazardous drinking immediately after the intervention, which were maintained at three-month follow-up. Drinking motives, particularly social and enhancement motives, were significantly lower in both conditions at the three-month follow-up but not immediately post-intervention. Alcohol expectancies did not change significantly over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Both EMA and EMA + PF related to modest reductions in hazardous drinking and drinking motives, yet personalized feedback did not provide incremental benefits over EMA alone. Efforts could explore the potential of EMA-based self-monitoring alone to reduce hazardous drinking.