Does a Brief Motivational Intervention Reduce Frequency of Pregaming in Mandated Students?

Abstract

Background Pregaming, also known as frontloading or predrinking, is a common but risky drinking behavior among college students. However, little is known about the way in which a brief motivational intervention (BMI) addressing general alcohol use and consequences may impact pregaming frequency. Objectives This study examined whether mandated students reduced frequency of pregaming following a BMI when pregaming was spontaneously discussed and whether gender moderated these effects. Methods Participants (n = 269, 32% female) were mandated college students who had received a campus-based alcohol citation and continued to exhibit risky alcohol use six weeks after receiving a brief advice session. Participants were randomized to a brief motivational intervention (BMI, n = 145) or assessment only (AO, n = 124) and completed follow-up assessments at 3, 6, and 9 months postintervention. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was used to examine both between-person (Level 2) effects (i.e., condition) and within-person (Level 1) effects (i.e., time) on pregaming frequency. Analyses examining discussions of pregaming within the BMI were conducted using a sub-sample of the BMI sessions which had been transcribed (n = 121). Results Participants in the BMI group did not significantly reduce the frequency of pregaming compared to those in the AO group, even when pregaming was explicitly discussed during the BMI. Moreover, the BMI was equally ineffective at reducing pregaming frequency for both males and females. Conclusion/Importance Pregaming frequency appears to be resistant to conventional intervention efforts, but recent research suggests several innovative strategies for addressing pregaming in the college student population.

Heterogeneity of Pregamers by Consumption and Reinforcement Reasons: A Latent Profile Analysis

“…The 2 other profiles ( Occasional and Infrequent ) consisted of students who were less engaged in pregaming. Given that current prevention and intervention efforts aimed at general alcohol consumption do not appear to impact pregaming (Borsari et al., ), identification of profiles that vary by engagement and motives could have significant implications for future prevention and intervention efforts.…”

“…However, a recent study has suggested that effects of these interventions remain small (Huh et al., ), and to date, BMIs addressing general alcohol use and consequences have not demonstrated an ability to reduce pregaming frequency or quantity (see Pedersen, ). A recent study (Borsari et al., ) that delivered BMIs with college students who were sanctioned for a drinking offense and also had not responded to a brief advice session found that BMIs did not affect pregaming frequency even when pregaming was explicitly discussed (quantity was not assessed). Given the unique nature of this sample (i.e., mandated students less responsive to a standard intervention) and lack of robust impact, there is a need to enhance current BMIs and other intervention efforts to reduce pregaming frequency and quantity in the general student population by better understanding who pregames and why.…”

An intercept study to measure the extent to which New Zealand university students pre‐game

“…night clubs, sporting events) relative to off‐licence outlets (e.g. liquor stores) 2,3,5 . (For an overview of pre‐gaming motives see: Bachrach et al, 2012; Labhart et al, 2016) 6,7 .…”

“…P re-gaming (also known as frontloading, pre-loading, pre-drinking, or pre-partying) is defined as the consumption of alcohol before a night out or event. [1][2][3] It is often typified by the swift consumption of alcohol over a short period of time 4 and is practised in part due to the price point of alcohol being much higher at on-licences (e.g. night clubs, sporting events) relative to off-licence outlets (e.g.…”

“…liquor stores). 2,3,5 (For an overview of pre-gaming motives see: Bachrach et al, 2012;Labhart et al, 2016). 6,7 For example, in New Zealand, a drink bought at an on-licence premise costs about 2.6 times more than a drink bought at an off-license premise.…”