The present study reports on the results of a 2.5-year college-wide, coordinated intervention that was implemented from June 2007 to December 2009 to reduce the amount and frequency of students’ alcohol consumption.
Design:
Quasi-experimental study using a one-group (freshmen living on campus) pretest/posttest design (N = 6,815 in 2007–2008 and N = 7,550 in 2008–2009) with a pseudo comparison group (non-freshmen living off campus).
Setting:
Indiana University-Bloomington, USA.
Method:
The social-ecological framework, a multi-tiered strategy that considers the individual, the social milieu, and the environment, was used to guide the selection and implementation of interventions in a university setting to target individuals, the student population, the college, and the surrounding community to reduce high-risk drinking. Freshmen, who were mandated to live on campus, comprised the intervention group while non-freshmen living off campus comprised the pseudo comparison group that received only the environmental-level intervention.
Results:
A larger decrease was observed in the amount and frequency of alcohol consumption in freshmen than in non-freshmen for the intervention period (mean drinks consumed per week: −15.9% versus −7.5%; percentage of students who drank at least once a week: −17.5% versus −6.7%; and binge drinking: −12.2% versus −1.0%).
Conclusion:
An ecologically guided campus-wide intervention that is multi-tiered appears to be effective in reducing drinking behaviour.
HingsonR. Magnitude and prevention of college drinking and related problems. Alcohol Res Health, 2010: 33: 45–54.
2.
US Department of Education. The US Department of Education’s Grant Competition to Prevent High-Risk Drinking or Violent Behavior Among College Students. Online. Available at: http://www.higheredcenter.org/files/grants/high-risk/fy07/faq.html (accessed 2 January 2011).
3.
CroomKLewisDMarchellT. Impact of an online alcohol education course on behavior and harm for incoming first-year college students: Short-term evaluation of a randomized trial. J Am Coll Health, 2009: 57(4): 445–54.
4.
UsdanSMartinRMaysD. Self-reported consequences of intoxication among college students: implications for harm reduction approaches to high-risk drinking. J Drug Educ, 2008: 38(4): 377–87.
5.
WechslerHNelsonTF. What we have learned from the Harvard school of public health college alcohol study: Focusing attention on college student alcohol consumption and the environmental conditions that promote it. J Stud Alcohol Drugs, 2008: 69: 1–10.
6.
Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A call to action: Changing the culture of drinking at U.S. colleges. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002. NIH publication 02–5010.
7.
TurrisiRMallettKAMastroleoNR. Heavy drinking in college students: Who is at risk and what is being done about it?J Gen Psychol, 2006: 133(4): 401–20.
8.
US Department of Health and Human Services. The surgeon general’s call to action to prevent and reduce underage drinking. Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General, 2007.
9.
DonohueBAllenDNMaurerA. A controlled evaluation of two prevention programs in reducing alcohol use among college students at low and high risk for alcohol related problems. J Alcohol Drug Educ, 2004: 48(1): 13–33.
10.
TurrisiRLarimerMEMallettKA. A randomized clinical trial evaluating a combined alcohol intervention for high-risk college students. J Stud Alcohol Drugs, 2009: 70: 555–67.
11.
WaltersSTMillerEChiauzziE. Wired for wellness: E-interventions for addressing college drinking. J Subst Abuse Treat, 2005: 29(2): 139–45.
12.
HustadJTBarnettNPBorsariB. Web-based alcohol prevention for incoming college students: a randomized controlled trial. Addict Behav, 2010: 35: 183–9.
13.
SaundersJBKypriKWaltersST. Approaches to brief intervention for hazardous drinking in young people. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2004: 28: 322–9.
14.
AgostinelliGBrownJMMillerWR. Effects of normative feedback on consumption among heavy drinking college students. J Drug Educ, 1995: 25(1): 31–40.
15.
WaltersST. In praise of feedback: An effective intervention for college students who are heavy drinkers. J Am Coll Health, 2000: 48(5): 235–8.
16.
WaltersSTBennettMEMillerJH. Reducing alcohol use in college students: A controlled trial of two brief interventions. J Drug Educ, 2000: 30(3): 361–72.
17.
BorsariBCareyK. How the quality of peer relationships influences college alcohol use. Drug Alcohol Rev, 2006: 25(4): 361–70.
18.
LeppelK. College binge drinking: Deviant versus mainstream behavior. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse, 2006: 32(4): 519–25.
19.
CiminiMDMartensMPLarimerME. Assessing the effectiveness of peer-facilitated interventions addressing high-risk drinking among judicially mandated college students. J Stud Alcohol Drugs, 2009: suppl 16: 57–66.
20.
DeJongWLangfordLM. A typology for campus-based alcohol prevention: Moving toward environmental management strategies. J Stud Alcohol, 2002: suppl 14: 140–7.
21.
PerkinsHW. Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts. J Stud Alcohol, 2002: suppl 14: 164–72.
22.
BaerJSKivlahanDRBlumeAW. Brief intervention for heavy-drinking college students: 4-year follow-up and natural history. Am J Public Health, 2001: 91(8): 1310–16.
23.
BaerJSMarlattGAKivlahanDR. An experimental test of three methods of alcohol risk reduction with young adults. J Consult Clin Psychol, 1992: 60: 974–9.
24.
BorsariBCareyK. Effects of a brief motivational intervention with college student drinkers. J Consult Clin Psychol, 2000: 68: 728–33.
25.
CareyKBCareyMPMaistoSA. Brief motivational interventions for heavy college drinkers: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol, 2006: 74(5): 943–54.
26.
LarimerMETurnerAPAndersonBK. Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention with fraternities. J Stud Alcohol, 2001: 62: 370–80.
27.
MarlattGABaerJSKivlahanDR. Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. J Consult Clin Psychol, 1998: 66(4): 604–15.
28.
HingsonRWHowlandJ. Comprehensive community interventions to promote health: implications for college-age drinking problems. J Stud Alcohol, 2002: suppl 14: 226–40.
29.
DeJongW. Experiences in effective prevention. The U.S. department of education’s alcohol and other drug prevention models on college campuses grants. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2007.
30.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. What colleges need to know now: An update on college drinking research. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2007. NIH publication 07–5010.
31.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Reducing underage drinking: A collective responsibility [Report brief]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
32.
ToomeyTLWagenaarAC. Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: Options and research findings. J Stud Alcohol, 2002: suppl 14: 193–205.
33.
BrounsteinPGardnerS. Principles of substance abuse prevention. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Division of Knowledge Development and Evaluation, 2001.
34.
MoskowitzJM. The primary prevention of alcohol problems: A critical review of the research literature. J Stud Alcohol, 1989: 50: 54–88.
35.
Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Reducing alcohol problems on campus: A guide to planning and evaluation. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,, 2002. NIH publication 02–5011.
36.
ToblerN. Drug prevention programs can work: Research findings. J Addict Dis, 1992: 1(1): 1–28.
37.
LarimerMECronceJM. Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual- focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. J Stud Alcohol, 2002: suppl 14: 148–63.
38.
ScottCGAmbrosonDL. The importance of individualizing and marketing campus prevention and intervention programs to meet the needs of specific campus audiences. J Alcohol Drug Educ, 1995: 40(3): 21–36.
39.
SeoD-CLiK. Effects of college climate on students’ binge drinking: hierarchical generalized linear model. Ann Behav Med, 2009: 38: 262–8.
40.
DeJongWVince-WhitmanCColthurstT. Environmental management: A comprehensive strategy for reducing alcohol and other drug use on college campuses. Newton, MA: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998.
41.
PresleyCAMeilmanPWLeichliterJS. College factors that influence drinking. J Stud Alcohol, 2002: suppl 14: 82–90.
42.
BronfenbrennerU. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.
43.
WallAF. Evaluating a health education web site: The case of AlcoholEdu. NASPA J, 2007: 44(4): 692–714.
44.
Core Institute at Southern Illinois University. Heavy and frequent use. Core data: Results. Online. Available at: http://www.siu.edu/~coreinst/ (accessed 8 February 2010).
45.
Von AhDEbertSNgamvitrojA. Predictors of health behaviors in college students. J Adv Nurs, 2004: 48(5): 463–74.
46.
SaxLJGilmartinSKBryantAN. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Res High Educ, 2003: 44(4): 409–32.
47.
DillmanDA. The design and administration of mail surveys. Annu Rev Sociol, 1991: 17: 225–49.
