Profiles of College Students Mandated to Alcohol Intervention

Barnett, Nancy P.; Borsari, Brian; Hustad, John; Tevyaw, Tracy O’Leary; Colby, Suzanne M.; Kahler, Christopher W.; Monti, Peter M.

doi:10.15288/jsad.2008.69.684

Cited by 34 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On average, these students only consumed 4.1 drinks per week, and experienced 0.75 incidents of past 2-week HED. These findings suggest that many adjudicated college students do not consume alcohol at problematic levels, consistent with research on the heterogeneity of college drinking (Barnett et al, 2008). This finding contributes further to the idea, developed by Borsari et al (2012), that a “one-size fits all approach” for intervening on college alcohol use may not be appropriate, and treatment should be matched to the level of need.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…For example, while Merrill et al (2014) observed a reported average of 12.3 drinks/week among mandated students, there was substantial variability (SD = 8.6), with 20% reporting five or fewer drinks/week, and over 15% reporting more than 20 drinks/week. Similarly, Barnett et al (2008) identified a “ Why me?” cluster (29.3% of sample) marked by relatively low levels of alcohol use as well as a “ So What?” cluster (24.7% of sample) characterized by high levels of heavy drinking days and alcohol problems in a mandated student sample. Thus, although average levels of drinking may be elevated among mandated students, the heterogenous nature of the population is an important consideration in the design and implementation of alcohol interventions (e.g., Borsari et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Novel Approach for Streamlining Delivery of Brief Motivational Interventions to Mandated College Students: Using Group and Individual Sessions Matched to Level of Risk

Bernstein

Baird

Yusufov

et al. 2017

Substance Use & Misuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mandated college students (those in violation of a campus alcohol policy) are heterogenous with respect to alcohol consumption. Thus, when universities consider required treatment for mandated students, one promising option is to match treatment intensity according to level of alcohol involvement. The present study evaluates such an approach with minimal resources. Methods Mandated students (N = 285) were required to complete a baseline assessment. Participants identified as high-risk (5+ past month alcohol problems AND 2+ past month heavy drinking episodes) received a one session individual Brief Motivational Intervention (I-BMI) whereas those identified as low-risk (all others) received a one session group Brief Motivational Intervention (G-BMI). I-BMI and G-BMI sessions were delivered by doctoral students in Clinical Psychology. Follow-up assessments were collected 1 month post-intervention (response rate = 73%). Results The vast majority of students complied with their requirement. Participants assigned to I-BMI reported an 82% reduction in drinks per week, a 58% reduction in heavy episodic drinking, and a 74% reduction in alcohol-related problems at a 1 month follow-up. Participants assigned to G-BMI reported a 61% reduction in drinks per week and a 42% reduction in alcohol-related problems at follow-up relative to baseline. Conclusion/Importance We demonstrate that matching intervention intensity on baseline alcohol involvement with mandated students is feasible and associated with short-term reductions in alcohol use and consequences. Universities may wish to consider the procedure outlined here as a way of allocating more resources to those who drink at problematic levels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Novel Approach for Streamlining Delivery of Brief Motivational Interventions to Mandated College Students: Using Group and Individual Sessions Matched to Level of Risk

Bernstein

Baird

Yusufov

et al. 2017

Substance Use & Misuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, research examining specific areas of defensiveness may lead to a greater understanding of the nature of their defensiveness. It may be that students do not think it is necessary to think about how much they drink; past research has explored clusters of mandated student drinkers falling into one of three categories (So What?, Why Me?, Bad Incident; Barnett et al, 2008). Specifically, the “So What?” cluster which is characterized by high heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems, moderate incident drinking and responsibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of heavy-drinking voluntary and mandated college students to a peer-led brief motivational intervention addressing alcohol use

Mastroleo

Oakley

Eaton

et al. 2014

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about the way in which mandated and heavy-drinking voluntary students comparatively respond to peer-led brief motivational interventions (BMIs) and the mediators and moderators of intervention effects. Research suggests mandated students may be more defensive due to their involvement in treatment against their will and this defensiveness, in turn, may relate to treatment outcome. Furthermore, it is not clear how mandated and heavy-drinking voluntary students perceived satisfaction with peer-led BMIs relates to treatment outcomes. Using data from two separate randomized controlled trials, heavy drinking college students (heavy-drinking voluntary, N= 156; mandated, N = 82) completed a peer-led Brief Motivational Intervention (BMI). Both mandated and heavy-drinking volunteer students significantly reduced drinking behaviors at 3-month follow-up, reported high levels of post-intervention session satisfaction, yet no effects for mediation or moderation were found. Findings offer continued support for using peer counselors to deliver BMIs; however, results regarding the mechanisms of change were in contrast to previous findings. Implications for treatment and future areas of research are discussed.

show abstract

“…Alcohol-related violations also have increased on college campuses (Barnett et al, 2008;Porter, 2006). Violations have ranged from minor possession to the more severe violations of public intoxication and destruction of property.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Violations have ranged from minor possession to the more severe violations of public intoxication and destruction of property. Students who violate campus policies often are mandated, sanctioned, or judicially referred to the dean of students (Barnett et al, 2008;Hustad et al, 2011), who might require students to complete an alcohol education or intervention program.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brief motivational intervention for heavy drinking mandated and voluntary freshmen: A 1-year follow-up assessment

Kazemi

Levine

et al. 2015

Nursing Outlook

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Profiles of College Students Mandated to Alcohol Intervention

Cited by 34 publications

References 33 publications

A Novel Approach for Streamlining Delivery of Brief Motivational Interventions to Mandated College Students: Using Group and Individual Sessions Matched to Level of Risk

A Novel Approach for Streamlining Delivery of Brief Motivational Interventions to Mandated College Students: Using Group and Individual Sessions Matched to Level of Risk

Response of heavy-drinking voluntary and mandated college students to a peer-led brief motivational intervention addressing alcohol use

Brief motivational intervention for heavy drinking mandated and voluntary freshmen: A 1-year follow-up assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About