Objective

Longitudinal research examining college students' alcohol use during the summer months, especially in at-risk individuals, is limited. The current study evaluated changes in mandated college students' alcohol use and related consequences over the summer.

Method

Participants (n = 305, 67% male) who had violated campus alcohol policy and were subsequently mandated to treatment completed follow-up assessments at 3, 6, and 9 months. For the majority of students, one of these follow-up assessments occurred over the summer. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine changes in alcohol use and related consequences during the school year and summer.

Results

Participants reported consuming significantly fewer drinks per occasion, reaching lower peak blood alcohol concentrations, and experiencing fewer alcohol-related consequences during the summer months. All outcomes were mediated by summer housing, indicating that summer influenced alcohol use indirectly through participants' tendency to live at home.

Conclusions

Despite small but significant decreases in alcohol consumption and related consequences when living with a parent/guardian, mandated college students continue to exhibit risky drinking and consequences during the summer months. Given these findings, summer may be an appropriate time to implement prevention and intervention strategies with mandated and other at-risk populations.

Background

Both drinking location and pregaming have been associated with heavy alcohol use among college students, yet the manner by which they uniquely contribute to alcohol intoxication remains unclear.

Objective

The current study examined the unique utility of drinking location and pregaming in predicting alcohol intoxication among college students who violated campus alcohol policy.

Method

Between 2011 and 2012, mandated college students who reported drinking prior to their referral events (N = 212, 41% female, 80% White, Mage = 19.4 y) completed a computerized assessment of drinking location and related behaviors as part of larger research trial. Chi-squared statistics, t-tests, one-way analyses of covariance, and regression were used to examine study aims.

Results

Participants were most likely (44%) to report drinking in off-campus housing prior to the referral event, and approximately half (47%) reported pregaming. Alcohol intoxication on the night of the referral event differed significantly as a function of both drinking location and pregaming, but pregaming did not moderate the association between drinking location and alcohol intoxication among mandated students. Female birth sex, pregaming, and drinking at either fraternities or off-campus housing predicted greater levels of alcohol intoxication on the night of the referral incident, while drinking in a residence hall/dorm predicted lower intoxication.

Conclusions/importance

Drinking location and pregaming are distinct predictors of alcohol intoxication among mandated college students. Future interventions may benefit from targeting both where and how college students consume alcohol.

Objective

Concurrent use of marijuana and alcohol among college students is highly prevalent and associated with negative consequences. It remains unclear whether marijuana use is influenced by or lessens the efficacy of alcohol interventions delivered within a stepped-care approach.

Method

Participants were 530 college students who violated campus alcohol policy and were mandated to an alcohol-focused brief advice (BA) session. Participants who reported continued risky alcohol use (4+ heavy drinking episodes and/or 5+ alcohol-related consequences in the past month) six weeks following the BA session were randomized to a brief motivational intervention (BMI; n=211) or assessment only (AO; n=194) condition. Follow-up assessments were conducted 3, 6, and 9months' post-intervention.

Results

Multiple regression analyses revealed that marijuana user status did not influence drinking outcomes following the BA session. However, hierarchical linear models suggested that marijuana users who were randomized to BMI or AO reported higher levels of binge drinking, pBAC and consequences compared to non-users, regardless of condition. Despite this, heavy drinking marijuana users and nonusers had equivalent reductions on alcohol use outcomes following the BMI sessions. Marijuana users who received a BMI did not significantly reduce marijuana use frequency compared to participants in the AO group.

Conclusion

Use of marijuana did not lessen the efficacy of the BA session on alcohol use or consequences. Findings suggest that marijuana users respond similarly to alcohol interventions as do non-users and can benefit from brief or more intensive alcohol interventions. A marijuana-focused intervention may be warranted to facilitate changes in marijuana use.

College students frequently engage in drinking games (DGs) and experience a variety of consequences as a result. It is currently unknown whether brief motivational interventions (BMIs) that provide feedback on DG participation can reduce this high risk behavior. This study examined outcome data from 2 randomized clinical trials to examine whether BMIs facilitate change in DG frequency and how these changes may occur. Mandated college students (Trial 1, N = 198, 46% female; Trial 2, N = 412; 32% female) were randomized to BMI or comparison control conditions. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to compare the BMI and comparison groups to determine whether the BMI reduced DG participation over time. Percent change talk (PCT) during the discussion of DG during the session was examined as a predictor of change in DG frequency, and gender was examined as a moderator of treatment effects. Controlling for regular drinking frequency, participants who received a BMI did not significantly reduce their DG frequency relative to the comparison group in either sample, and the BMI was equally ineffective at reducing DG behavior for men and women. DG-related PCT during the BMI was associated with lower DG frequency at the second follow-up in both trials. In Trial 1, PCT during the BMI was associated with less steep increases in DG frequency across the course of all follow-ups. Effects of PCT on DG behavior were not moderated by gender. Findings did not support hypothesized reductions in DG participation following a BMI. Future research should explore whether targeted DG-specific interventions could reduce DG participation and the role of in-session client language in facilitating such change. (PsycINFO Database Record

Stepped care approaches for mandated college students provide individual brief motivational interventions (BMI) only for individuals who do not respond to an initial, low-intensity level of treatment such as Brief Advice (BA). However, how BMIs facilitate change in this higher-risk group of mandated students remains unclear. Perceived descriptive norms and alcohol-related expectancies are the most commonly examined mediators of BMI efficacy but have yet to be examined in the context of stepped care. Participants were mandated college students (N = 598) participating in a stepped care trial in which mandated students first received BA. Those who reported continued risky drinking 6 weeks following a BA session were randomized to either a single-session BMI (N = 163) or an assessment-only comparison condition (AO; N = 165). BMI participants reduced alcohol-related problems at the 9 month follow up significantly more than AO participants. Multiple mediation analyses using bootstrapping techniques examined whether perceived descriptive norms and alcohol-related expectancies mediated the observed outcomes. Reductions in perceptions of average student drinking (B = -.24; 95% CI [-.61, -.04]) and negative expectancies (B = -.13; 95% CI [-.38, -.01]) mediated the BMI effects. Furthermore, perceived average student norms were reduced after the BMI to levels approximating those of students who had exhibited lower risk drinking following the BA session. Findings highlight the utility of addressing perceived norms and expectancies in BMIs, especially for students who have not responded to less intensive prevention efforts.