Jeanne E Savage1, Zoe Neale1,2, Seung Bin Cho1, Linda Hancock3, Jelger A Kalmijn4, Tom L Smith4, Marc A Schuckit4, Kristen Kidd Donovan3, Danielle M Dick2,5. 1. Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics , Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 2. Department of Psychology , Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 3. Wellness Resource Center , Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 4. Department of Psychiatry , University of California, San Diego, California. 5. Departments of African American Studies and Human and Molecular Genetics , Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heavy alcohol consumption and alcohol problems among college students are widespread and associated with negative outcomes for individuals and communities. Although current methods for prevention and intervention programming have some demonstrated efficacy, heavy drinking remains a problem. A previous pilot study and a recent large-scale evaluation (Schuckit et al., , ) found that a tailored prevention program based on a risk factor for heavy drinking, low level of response (low LR) to alcohol, was more effective at reducing heavy drinking than a state-of-the-art (SOTA) standard prevention program for individuals with the low LR risk factor. METHODS: This study enrolled 231 first-semester college freshmen with either high or low LR into the same level of response-based (LRB) or SOTA online prevention programs as in the previous reports (consisting of 4 weeks of video modules), as well as a group of matched controls not receiving alcohol prevention, and compared changes in alcohol use between these groups across a 6-month period. RESULTS: Individuals in alcohol prevention programs had a greater reduction in maximum drinks per occasion and alcohol use disorder symptoms than controls. There was limited evidence for interactions between LR and prevention group in predicting change in alcohol use behaviors; only among participants with strict adherence to the program was there an interaction between LR and program in predicting maximum drinks per occasion. However, overall, low LR individuals showed greater decreases in drinking behaviors, especially risky behaviors (e.g., maximum drinks, frequency of heavy drinking) than high LR individuals. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that prevention programs, including brief and relatively inexpensive web-based programs, may be effective for persons at highest risk for heavier drinking, such as those with a low LR. Tailored programs may provide incremental benefits under some conditions. Long-term follow-ups and further investigations of tailored prevention programs based on other risk factors are needed.
BACKGROUND: Heavy alcohol consumption and alcohol problems among college students are widespread and associated with negative outcomes for individuals and communities. Although current methods for prevention and intervention programming have some demonstrated efficacy, heavy drinking remains a problem. A previous pilot study and a recent large-scale evaluation (Schuckit et al., , ) found that a tailored prevention program based on a risk factor for heavy drinking, low level of response (low LR) to alcohol, was more effective at reducing heavy drinking than a state-of-the-art (SOTA) standard prevention program for individuals with the low LR risk factor. METHODS: This study enrolled 231 first-semester college freshmen with either high or low LR into the same level of response-based (LRB) or SOTA online prevention programs as in the previous reports (consisting of 4 weeks of video modules), as well as a group of matched controls not receiving alcohol prevention, and compared changes in alcohol use between these groups across a 6-month period. RESULTS: Individuals in alcohol prevention programs had a greater reduction in maximum drinks per occasion and alcohol use disorder symptoms than controls. There was limited evidence for interactions between LR and prevention group in predicting change in alcohol use behaviors; only among participants with strict adherence to the program was there an interaction between LR and program in predicting maximum drinks per occasion. However, overall, low LR individuals showed greater decreases in drinking behaviors, especially risky behaviors (e.g., maximum drinks, frequency of heavy drinking) than high LR individuals. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that prevention programs, including brief and relatively inexpensive web-based programs, may be effective for persons at highest risk for heavier drinking, such as those with a low LR. Tailored programs may provide incremental benefits under some conditions. Long-term follow-ups and further investigations of tailored prevention programs based on other risk factors are needed.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Marc A Schuckit; Tom L Smith; Jelger Kalmijn; Jessica Skidmore; Peyton Clausen; Alexandra Shafir; Gretchen Saunders; Hannah Bystritsky; Kim Fromme Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Marc A Schuckit; Tom L Smith; Jon Heron; Matthew Hickman; John Macleod; Glyn Lewis; John M Davis; Joseph R Hibbeln; Sandra Brown; Luisa Zuccolo; Laura L Miller; George Davey-Smith Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: María Belén Acevedo; Margarita Teran-Garcia; Kathleen K Bucholz; J Christopher Eagon; Bruce D Bartholow; Nicholas A Burd; Naiman Khan; Blair Rowitz; Marta Yanina Pepino Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Kelly E Courtney; Maria Alejandra Infante; Gregory G Brown; Susan F Tapert; Alan N Simmons; Tom L Smith; Marc A Schuckit Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Dongbing Lai; Leah Wetherill; Manav Kapoor; Emma C Johnson; Melanie Schwandt; Vijay A Ramchandani; David Goldman; Geoff Joslyn; Xi Rao; Yunlong Liu; Sean Farris; R Dayne Mayfield; Danielle Dick; Victor Hesselbrock; John Kramer; Vivia V McCutcheon; John Nurnberger; Jay Tischfield; Alison Goate; Howard J Edenberg; Bernice Porjesz; Arpana Agrawal; Tatiana Foroud; Marc Schuckit Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Clarissa C Parker; Vivek M Philip; Daniel M Gatti; Steven Kasparek; Andrew M Kreuzman; Lauren Kuffler; Benjamin Mansky; Sophie Masneuf; Kayvon Sharif; Erica Sluys; Dominik Taterra; Walter M Taylor; Mary Thomas; Oksana Polesskaya; Abraham A Palmer; Andrew Holmes; Elissa J Chesler Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-04-17 Impact factor: 3.928
Authors: Roberto U Cofresí; Casey B Kohen; Courtney A Motschman; Reinout W Wiers; Thomas M Piasecki; Bruce D Bartholow Journal: Addiction Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Zoe E Neale; Jessica E Salvatore; Megan E Cooke; Jeanne E Savage; Fazil Aliev; Kristen K Donovan; Linda C Hancock; Danielle M Dick Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2018-05-22