OBJECTIVE: Addressing high-risk alcohol and cannabis use represent major challenges to institutions of higher education. A range of evidence-based treatment approaches are available, but little is known concerning students' receptiveness to such approaches. Prior work identified that students were most open to individual therapy and self-help options for reducing alcohol use, but less open to medication. The current study examines student receptiveness to intervention approaches across a wider range of intervention approaches (e.g., remote/telehealth), and extends to evaluate cannabis intervention receptiveness. METHOD: Undergraduate students reported on alcohol and cannabis use, motives for and reasons against use, and openness to an array of interventions for reducing alcohol and cannabis use. RESULTS: Informal options (self-help, talking with family/friends), individual therapy, and appointments with a primary care provider (PCP) were endorsed most frequently. Group therapy and medication were less commonly endorsed, though medication was endorsed at a higher prevalence than in prior studies. Women generally expressed higher receptiveness than men. Lower alcohol consumption was associated with increased receptiveness to some approaches. Students at high risk for alcohol and/or cannabis dependence were less receptive to many treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: College students were open to a wide variety of approaches for reducing their alcohol and cannabis use. These results can inform selection, implementation, and availability of campus-wide services, especially as low-cost technological-based approaches are expanding. Further attention to existing services (e.g., PCP) for addressing alcohol and cannabis use may be considered, given students' receptiveness to such approaches. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Addressing high-risk alcohol and cannabis use represent major challenges to institutions of higher education. A range of evidence-based treatment approaches are available, but little is known concerning students' receptiveness to such approaches. Prior work identified that students were most open to individual therapy and self-help options for reducing alcohol use, but less open to medication. The current study examines student receptiveness to intervention approaches across a wider range of intervention approaches (e.g., remote/telehealth), and extends to evaluate cannabis intervention receptiveness. METHOD: Undergraduate students reported on alcohol and cannabis use, motives for and reasons against use, and openness to an array of interventions for reducing alcohol and cannabis use. RESULTS: Informal options (self-help, talking with family/friends), individual therapy, and appointments with a primary care provider (PCP) were endorsed most frequently. Group therapy and medication were less commonly endorsed, though medication was endorsed at a higher prevalence than in prior studies. Women generally expressed higher receptiveness than men. Lower alcohol consumption was associated with increased receptiveness to some approaches. Students at high risk for alcohol and/or cannabis dependence were less receptive to many treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: College students were open to a wide variety of approaches for reducing their alcohol and cannabis use. These results can inform selection, implementation, and availability of campus-wide services, especially as low-cost technological-based approaches are expanding. Further attention to existing services (e.g., PCP) for addressing alcohol and cannabis use may be considered, given students' receptiveness to such approaches. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Katherine Walukevich-Dienst; Elizabeth M Lewis; Clayton Neighbors; Jackson C Green; Julia D Buckner Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Cynthia K Suerken; Beth A Reboussin; Kathleen L Egan; Erin L Sutfin; Kimberly G Wagoner; John Spangler; Mark Wolfson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Cassandra L Boness; Ozlem Korucuoglu; Jarrod M Ellingson; Anne M Merrill; Yoanna E McDowell; Constantine J Trela; Kenneth J Sher; Thomas M Piasecki; John G Kerns Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 3.157