BACKGROUND: The first year of university studies is associated with increased levels of alcohol drinking and stress. This study examines the one-year outcome of both primary and secondary interventions of one alcohol programme and one stress intervention programme at an intervention university in comparison with a control university. METHODS: At the intervention university all freshmen were offered a primary prevention programme for hazardous alcohol use and stress management and, in addition, those who had high ratings for stress and/or hazardous alcohol use were offered a secondary intervention programme for alcohol consumption and/or stress management. Freshmen still attending the two universities one year later responded to follow-up questionnaires. RESULTS: The primary alcohol and stress interventions were associated with lower alcohol expectancies and mental symptoms, but no differences in AUDIT scores (-0.2, CI 95% -0.5 to 0.1), estimated blood alcohol concentrations or stress in comparison to freshmen at the control university. The secondary alcohol interventions were associated with decreased AUDIT (-1.1, CI 95% -2.0 to -0.2) as well as alcohol expectancies, blood alcohol concentrations, stress and mental symptoms in comparison to high-risk freshmen at the control university. The secondary stress interventions were associated with decreased mental symptoms and alcohol expectancies, but not stress, AUDIT scores (-0.6, CI 95% -1.4 to 0.2) and blood alcohol concentrations in comparison to high-risk freshmen at the control university. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that both primary and secondary alcohol and stress interventions have 1-year effects in university freshmen and could be implemented in university settings.
BACKGROUND: The first year of university studies is associated with increased levels of alcohol drinking and stress. This study examines the one-year outcome of both primary and secondary interventions of one alcohol programme and one stress intervention programme at an intervention university in comparison with a control university. METHODS: At the intervention university all freshmen were offered a primary prevention programme for hazardous alcohol use and stress management and, in addition, those who had high ratings for stress and/or hazardous alcohol use were offered a secondary intervention programme for alcohol consumption and/or stress management. Freshmen still attending the two universities one year later responded to follow-up questionnaires. RESULTS: The primary alcohol and stress interventions were associated with lower alcohol expectancies and mental symptoms, but no differences in AUDIT scores (-0.2, CI 95% -0.5 to 0.1), estimated blood alcohol concentrations or stress in comparison to freshmen at the control university. The secondary alcohol interventions were associated with decreased AUDIT (-1.1, CI 95% -2.0 to -0.2) as well as alcohol expectancies, blood alcohol concentrations, stress and mental symptoms in comparison to high-risk freshmen at the control university. The secondary stress interventions were associated with decreased mental symptoms and alcohol expectancies, but not stress, AUDIT scores (-0.6, CI 95% -1.4 to 0.2) and blood alcohol concentrations in comparison to high-risk freshmen at the control university. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that both primary and secondary alcohol and stress interventions have 1-year effects in university freshmen and could be implemented in university settings.
Authors: Paul Lehrer; Jennifer F Buckman; Eun-Young Mun; Evgeny G Vaschillo; Bronya Vaschillo; Tomoko Udo; Suchismita Ray; Tam Nguyen; Marsha E Bates Journal: Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback Date: 2013-12