Objective: Social adjustment, including alcohol use, directly affects the success of college students. Due to an increased reliance on computer-delivered alcohol interventions (CDIs) a need has emerged to further investigate alcohol use and web-based interventions. Methods: In-depth focus group interviews were conducted with 51 undergraduate students to elicit information from students on the shared experience of participating in a CDI. Results: Participants identified the influence of gender, culture, parents, and family on alcohol use behavior. A difference in personal factors, previous exposure, and experiences can affect the attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes of a CDI. Conclusion: Multiple approaches geared towards a wide variety of students from different backgrounds and environments are needed to be truly successful in preventing alcohol misuse.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
3.
BanduraA. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In VastaR. (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1–60). JAI Press.
4.
BarryA.HobbsL. A.HaasE. J.GibsonG. (2016). Qualitatively assessing the experiences of college students completing AlcoholEdu: Do participants report altering behavior after intervention?Journal of Health Communication, 21(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018645
5.
BraitmanA. L.HensonJ. M. (2016). Personalized boosters for a computerized intervention targeting college drinking: The influence of protective behavioral strategies. Journal of American College Health, 64(7), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2016.1185725
6.
CareyK. B.CareyM. P.HensonJ. M.MaistoS. A.DeMartiniK. S. (2011). Brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students: Comparison of face to face counseling and computer-delivered interventions. Addiction, 106(3), 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03193.x
7.
CareyK. B.Scott-SheldonL. A.ElliottJ. C.GareyL.CareyM. P. (2012). Face-to face versus computer-delivered alcohol interventions for college drinkers: A meta-analytic review, 1998 to 2010. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(8), 690–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.08.001
8.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Qualitative methods. In Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed., pp. 183–213). Sage.
9.
CronceJ. M.LarimerM. E. (2011). Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college drinking. Alcohol Research & Health: The Journal of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 34(2), 210–221. PMID: 22330220.
10.
Del BocaF.DarkesJ. (2003). The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: State of the science and challenges for research. Addiction, 98(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1359-6357.2003.00586.x
11.
DonovanE.WoodM.FrayjoK.BlackR. A.SuretteD. A. (2012). A randomized, controlled trial to test the efficacy of an online, parent-based intervention for reducing the risks associated with college-student alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 37(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.09.007
12.
FrieseB.GrubeJ. W.MooreR. S.JenningsV. K. (2012). Parents’ rules about underage drinking: A qualitative study of why parents let teens drink. Journal of Drug Education, 42(4), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.2190/DE.42.4.a
13.
HarrisonL. D.MartinS. S.EnevT.HarringtonD. (2007). Comparing drug testing and self-report of drug use among youths and young adults in the general population (DHHS Publication No SMA 07-4249, Methodology Series M-7). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
14.
JenkinsS. R.BelangerA.ConnallyM. L.BoalsA.DuronK. M. (2013). First-generation undergraduate students’ social support, depression, and life satisfaction. Journal of College Counseling, 16(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2013.00032.x
15.
LovecchioC.WyattT.DeJongW. (2010). Reductions in drinking and alcohol-related harms reported by first-year college students taking an online alcohol education course: A randomized trial. Journal of Health Communication, 15(7), 805–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.514032
NeighborsC.LewisM. A.AtkinsD. C.JensenM. M.WalterT.FossosN.LeeC. M.LarimerM. E. (2010). Efficacy of web-based personalized normative feedback: A two-year randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(6), 898–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020766
18.
NygaardP.PaschallM. J. (2012). Students’ experiences with web-based alcohol prevention: A qualitative evaluation of AlcoholEdu. Journal of Drug Education, 42(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.2190/DE.42.2.b
19.
PaschallM. J.AntinT.RingwaltC.SaltzR. F. (2011a). Effects of AlcoholEdu for college on alcohol-related problems among freshmen: A randomized multi-campus trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(4), 642–650. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2011.72.642
20.
PaschallM. J.AntinT.RingwaltC.SaltzR. F. (2011b). Evaluation of an internet-based alcohol misuse prevention course for college freshmen. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(3), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.03.021
21.
RichardsL.MorseJ. M. (2007). Users guide for qualitative methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
22.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA] (2018). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 18-5068, NSDUH Series H-53). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/
23.
TaylorP. H. (2019). Exploring the effectiveness of a computer-delivered alcohol intervention in first-generation college students [Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
