Objective While research has documented heavy drinking practices and associated negative consequences of college students turning 21, few studies have examined prevention efforts aimed to reduce high-risk drinking during 21st birthday celebrations. The present study evaluated the comparative efficacy of a general prevention effort (i.e., BASICS) and event specific prevention in reducing 21st birthday drinking and related negative consequences. Furthermore, this study evaluated inclusion of peers in interventions and mode of intervention delivery (i.e., in-person vs. web). Method Participants included 599 college students (46% male) who intended to consume at least five/four drinks (men/women respectively) on their 21st birthday. After completing a screening/baseline assessment approximately one week before turning 21, participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions: 21st birthday in-person BASICS, 21st birthday web BASICS, 21st birthday in-person BASICS plus friend intervention, 21st birthday web BASICS plus friend intervention, BASICS, or an attention control. A follow-up assessment was completed approximately one week after students’ birthdays. Results Results indicated a significant intervention effect for BASICS in reducing blood alcohol content reached and number of negative consequences experienced. All three in-person interventions reduced negative consequences experienced. Results for the web-based interventions varied by drinking outcome and whether or not a friend was included. Conclusions Overall, results provide support for both general intervention and ESP approaches across modalities for reducing extreme drinking and negative consequences associated with turning 21. These results suggest there are several promising options for campuses seeking to reduce both use and consequences associated with 21st birthday celebrations.

College represents a period of risk for heavy drinking and experiencing unwanted consequences associated with drinking. Previous research has identified specific events including holidays (e.g., New Years), school breaks (e.g., Spring Break) and personally relevant events (e.g., 21st birthdays) that are associated with elevated risk of heavy drinking and negative alcohol-related consequences. The systematic evaluation of relative risk offers insights into event specific drinking and an empirical basis upon which to consider allocation of limited prevention resources. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to provide a comparative index of drinking across a wide range of holidays and compare holiday drinking to 21st birthday drinking. Participants were 1,124 students (55% female) who had turned 21 within the previous three weeks in 2008 and provided 90-day retrospective reports of their drinking using the Timeline Follow-back. Results based on a hurdle mixed model for blood alcohol content (BAC) revealed several holidays that stand out for elevated drinking, including New Year’s Eve and July 4th, whereas other holidays appear more similar to weekend drinking, such as Spring Break (approximately last week of March) and graduation (mid-June). Drinking on holidays or special days was substantially lower than drinking on 21st birthdays. Results are discussed in terms of practical applications for targeted intervention efforts on college campuses toward specific events where elevated drinking is known to occur.

College is a time of increased risk for problematic alcohol use and depressed mood. The comorbidity of these conditions is well documented, but is less well understood, with few interventions designed to prevent or reduce the related consequences. The current study evaluated a web-based personalized intervention for students (N=311) who reported an AUDIT score of 8 or more, a BDI-II score of 14 or more, and reported drinking four (women) or five (men) or more drinks on at least one occasion in the past month. Method: Invited participants were randomly selected from all enrolled undergraduates at a large, public, Pacific Northwestern university. Participants completed a screening and baseline assessment, and those who met study eligibility criteria were randomized to one of four conditions (alcohol only, depressed mood only, integrated, and referral-only control). Follow-up occurred one-month post-intervention. Results: While no main effects for the interventions were found, there were moderation effects, such that students in the alcohol only and integrated conditions who had lower levels of depressed mood or alcohol-related problems at baseline showed greater reductions in alcohol-related problems at follow-up compared to students in the control condition. Implications for interventions are discussed.

Objective While recent studies have documented high-risk drinking occurring during Spring Break (SB), particularly on SB trips with friends, published intervention studies are few. The present study evaluated the efficacy of Event Specific Prevention (ESP) strategies for reducing SB drinking among college students, compared to general prevention strategies and an assessment-only control group, as well as evaluated inclusion of peers in interventions and mode of intervention delivery (in-person vs. web). Method Participants included 783 undergraduates (56.1% women, average age 20.5) intending to go on a SB trip with friends as well as to drink heavily on at least one day of SB. Participants completed assessments prior to SB and were randomized to one of five intervention conditions: SB in-person BASICS, SB web BASICS, SB in-person BASICS with friend, SB web BASICS with friend, general BASICS, or an attention control condition. Follow-up assessment was completed one week after SB. Results While the SB web BASICS (with and without friends) and general BASICS interventions were not effective at reducing SB drinking, results indicated significant intervention effects for SB in-person BASICS in reducing SB drinking, particularly on trip days. Follow-up analyses indicated change in descriptive norms mediated treatment effect and reductions in drinking, while SB drinking intentions and positive expectancies did not. Conclusions Overall, results suggest an in-person SB-specific intervention is effective at reducing SB drinking, especially during trips. In contrast, interventions that contain non-SB related content, are web-based, or seek to involve friends may be less effective at reducing SB drinking.

Spring Break trips are associated with heavy drinking and with risky sexual behavior (e.g., unprotected sex, multiple partners, unwanted sexual contact), especially for those students who go on trips with friends. The present study adds to this growing event-specific risk literature by examining Spring Break-specific normative perceptions of sexual risk behavior and the role that these perceptions and taking a trip with a friend or with a romantic partner have on Spring Break sexual behavior. College students (N = 1,540; 53.9% female) were asked to report descriptive normative perceptions of sex with casual partners, drinking prior to sex, number of drinks prior to sex, and condom use as well as their own Spring Break drinking and sexual behaviors. Students perceived the typical same-sex student to have engaged in more frequent sexual behavior for all outcomes than students’ own self-reported sexual behavior. Furthermore, results revealed that these perceptions were positively associated with behavior. The choice of travel companion (friend(s) vs. romantic partner) also deferentially predicted sexual behaviors. Results suggested that intervention efforts aimed at reducing risks for Spring Break trip-takers may be strongest when they incorporate corrective normative information and target those traveling with friends.