Helene R White1, Yang Jiao1, Anne E Ray1, David Huh2, David C Atkins2, Mary E Larimer2, Kim Fromme3, William R Corbin4, John S Baer5,6, Joseph W LaBrie7, Eun-Young Mun1. 1. Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey. 2. Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas. 4. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. 5. Department of Psychology, The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 6. Veterans' Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington. 7. Department of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether brief motivational interventions (BMIs) designed for reducing heavy drinking among college students have secondary effects on reducing marijuana use. METHOD: The data came from Project INTEGRATE, which combined data from 24 independent trials of BMIs and other individual-focused interventions designed to reduce heavy drinking and related problems among college students. We analyzed data from 10 samples across nine studies that used random assignment of participants into either a BMI or a control group and assessed marijuana use outcomes (N = 6,768; 41.5% men; 73.2% White; 57.7% first-year students; 19.2% current marijuana users at baseline). We derived three marijuana use groups within studies by cross-tabulating baseline and follow-up data: Nonusers, Reducers, and Stayers/Increasers. RESULTS: Peto's one-step odds ratio analyses for meta-analysis revealed no significant intervention effects on marijuana use at either short-term (1-3 month) or long-term (6-12 month) follow-up. Subsequent exploratory analyses showed that those who reduced drinking were more likely to be a marijuana Reducer or Nonuser, compared with a Stayer/Increaser, at both follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: The BMIs to reduce heavy drinking evaluated in this study did not reduce marijuana use. However, our exploratory results suggest that if we can develop interventions for college students that effectively reduce drinking, we may also reduce their marijuana use. Furthermore, as recreational use of marijuana becomes legal or decriminalized and marijuana becomes more readily available, it may be necessary to develop interventions specifically targeting marijuana use among college students.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether brief motivational interventions (BMIs) designed for reducing heavy drinking among college students have secondary effects on reducing marijuana use. METHOD: The data came from Project INTEGRATE, which combined data from 24 independent trials of BMIs and other individual-focused interventions designed to reduce heavy drinking and related problems among college students. We analyzed data from 10 samples across nine studies that used random assignment of participants into either a BMI or a control group and assessed marijuana use outcomes (N = 6,768; 41.5% men; 73.2% White; 57.7% first-year students; 19.2% current marijuana users at baseline). We derived three marijuana use groups within studies by cross-tabulating baseline and follow-up data: Nonusers, Reducers, and Stayers/Increasers. RESULTS: Peto's one-step odds ratio analyses for meta-analysis revealed no significant intervention effects on marijuana use at either short-term (1-3 month) or long-term (6-12 month) follow-up. Subsequent exploratory analyses showed that those who reduced drinking were more likely to be a marijuana Reducer or Nonuser, compared with a Stayer/Increaser, at both follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: The BMIs to reduce heavy drinking evaluated in this study did not reduce marijuana use. However, our exploratory results suggest that if we can develop interventions for college students that effectively reduce drinking, we may also reduce their marijuana use. Furthermore, as recreational use of marijuana becomes legal or decriminalized and marijuana becomes more readily available, it may be necessary to develop interventions specifically targeting marijuana use among college students.
Authors: Peter M Monti; Nancy P Barnett; Suzanne M Colby; Chad J Gwaltney; Anthony Spirito; Damaris J Rohsenow; Robert Woolard Journal: Addiction Date: 2007-06-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Mary E Larimer; Christine M Lee; Jason R Kilmer; Patricia M Fabiano; Christopher B Stark; Irene M Geisner; Kimberly A Mallett; Ty W Lostutter; Jessica M Cronce; Maggie Feeney; Clayton Neighbors Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2007-04
Authors: Eun-Young Mun; Jimmy de la Torre; David C Atkins; Helene R White; Anne E Ray; Su-Young Kim; Yang Jiao; Nickeisha Clarke; Yan Huo; Mary E Larimer; David Huh Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2014-12-29
Authors: Eun-Young Mun; Zhengyang Zhou; David Huh; Lin Tan; Dateng Li; Emily E Tanner-Smith; Scott T Walters; Mary E Larimer Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2022-08-17
Authors: Michael D Stein; Celeste M Caviness; Emily F Morse; Kristin R Grimone; Daniel Audet; Debra S Herman; Ethan Moitra; Bradley J Anderson Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Rachel L Gunn; Alyssa L Norris; Alexander Sokolovsky; Lauren Micalizzi; Jennifer E Merrill; Nancy P Barnett Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2018-10-25
Authors: Ali M Yurasek; Jennifer E Merrill; Jane Metrik; Mary Beth Miller; Anne C Fernandez; Brian Borsari Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2017-05-31