View
220
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Challenging Pregaming Expectations in Entering
Freshmen
Alison Bateman, Ph.D.Wellness Center
Santa Clara UniversityJASPA Summer Institute, July 2010
Agenda
What is meant by “evidence-based prevention programming,” and why it should be part of your prevention efforts
The prevalence of pregaming An in-progress example from Santa
Clara University Suggestions for implementing this on
your campus
Evidence-Based Programming
Adapted from clinical psychology Notion is to conduct research to
determine key elements Who needs prevention programming? Does your programming work?
If so, for whom? Under what circumstances?
Evidence-Based Programming
Not as daunting as it appears Key elements:
Find way(s) to gather information about alcohol and drug use on campus in a systematic, controlled manner
Find ways(s) to maximize participation and honest responding from students
Find way(s) to involve experts to help you with the process
Why Do Research?
Allows you to know your student body Who is at risk? When/where/how are students drinking? Do your current programming and/or
policies have any impact?
Collecting the “Right” Data Many existing surveys do a good job of
collecting standard drinking measures May want to consider developing own
survey if you want to examine other drinking practices or correlates not contained in these Can gather more targeted information
about high-risk practices and groups at your university
Can do as stand-alone or supplement to existing larger-scale surveys
Follow Up Gathering pre- and post-intervention data
is helpful in conducting a program evaluation
Tips for improving follow-up rates: Enlist the help of students
i.e., Community Facilitators (RAs) at SCU Provide incentives for participation if at all
possible and make them salient to the students Be tenacious Timing is everything
One Lesson From Our Research: Pregaming
Anecdotal evidence about pregaming-related issues
Began empirically looking at pregaming rates and changes across the freshman year starting in 2007
Interested in scope of problem and whether it is “inherited” or “acquired”
Pregaming Research
Results of a study of pregaming prevalence at LMU by Pedersen and LaBrie (2007):
75% of college drinkers pregamed in the past 30 days Pregaming was involved in at least 45% of all
drinking events No gender differences were found in
pregaming
Journal of American College Health, Vol. 56
Pregaming Research (cont’d)
Results of a subsequent study on pregaming by LaBrie and Petersen (2008): Women ingested more drinks on days when
they pregamed as compared to days when they refrained from pregaming
This equated to a 29% increase in women’s BAC on pregaming days vs. non-pregaming days
Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 33
Pregaming Research (cont’d)
Results of study about pregaming in mandated students (Borsari et al., 2007): Almost 1 in 3 mandated students reported
they pregamed on the night they received the referral
These pregamers reported engaging in the behavior more frequently, with almost twice the estimate BAC on the night of the referral (.215 for pregamers vs. .133 for mandated students who did not pregame during that event)
Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 32
National StatisticsAlcohol: 30 Day Prevelance
Students to Complete 4 Years of CollegeSource: Monitoring the Future (monitoringthefuture.org)
01020
30405060
7080
Grade 8
Grade 10
Grade 12
Alcohol: Trends in 2-Week Prevalence of 5 or More Drinks in a Row by SubgroupsStudents to Complete 4 Years of College
Source: Monitoring the Future (monitoringthefuture.org)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Grade 12
Trends in 30-Day Prevalence of Use by Subgroups in Grade 12Students to Complete 4 Years of College
Source: Monitoring the Future (monitoringthefuture.org)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Beer
Liquor
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
Year
Trends in 2-Week Prevalence of 5 or More Drinks in a Row by Subgroups in Grade 12Students to Complete 4 Years of College
Source: Monitoring the Future (monitoringthefuture.org)
Beer
Liqour
Institutions in AlcoholEdu Jesuit College/University Comparison
Boston College College of the Holy Cross Creighton University Fairfield University John Carroll University Loyola College-Maryland Loyola University Chicago Marquette University Saint Louis University Santa Clara University University of Scranton
SCU vs. Other Jesuit Institutions
To what degree is it acceptable for people to drink underage? (7-point scale: 1=never; 7=always)
SCU Pre-matriculation survey: Mean=3.61; SD=1.63 (N=919)
Jesuit Colleges & Universities: Mean=3.48; Difference=.13; SD=1.67 (N=11,810)
National Average: Mean=3.19; Difference=.42; SD=1.71 (N=229,582)
Based on data from AlcoholEdu Survey 1 (prematriculation)
SCU vs. Other Jesuit Institutions (cont’d)
To what degree is it acceptable for people to drink underage? (7-point scale: 1=never; 7=always)
2.9
33.1
3.23.3
3.4
3.53.6
3.7
Mean
SCU
Other JesuitInst.
National Data
SCU vs. Other Jesuit Institutions (cont’d)
To what degree is it acceptable for people to get drunk on school nights? (7-point scale: 1=never; 7=always)
SCU Pre-matriculation survey: Mean=1.99; SD=1.20 (N=920)
Jesuit Colleges & Universities: Mean=1.74; Difference=.25; SD=1.04 (N=11,842)
National Average: Mean=1.73; Difference=.26; SD=1.09
(N=230,298)
Based on data from AlcoholEdu Survey 1 (prematriculation)
SCU vs. Other Jesuit Institutions (cont’d)
To what degree is it acceptable for people to get drunk on school nights? (7-point scale: 1=never; 7=always)
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
Mean
SCU
Other JesuitInst.
National Data
Pregaming at SCU
Limited research indicated pregaming is a problem and we had anecdotal evidence about its prevalence at SCU
Asked basic question, “Is pregaming a problem at SCU?”
Answer: Yes – but…
Before entering SCU: 74% of our entering freshmen drink Of those, 25% pregame during at
least ¼ of their drinking episodes 13% of students pregame most of the
time they drink
Welcome Weekend Survey 2009
Welcome Weekend Survey Longitudinal survey administered to
entering freshmen at SCU across the freshman year (at move-in weekend and week 8 of each quarter)
Assesses standard drinking and consequences but also contains items that more thoroughly assess pregaming, drinking games, concomitant alcohol-drug use, and illicit drug use
Welcome Weekend Survey (cont’d)
Allows us to really understand our students and how drinking and drug use changes across the freshman year
Data collected has been instrumental in identifying trends in drinking and drug use and guiding prevention programming on campus
Examples from SCU’s program
Over the past 5 years we have learned that our students are not the same as what the national data suggests in some areas, and similar in others Athletes not at higher risk Entering freshmen drink at comparable
rates How they drink may be different due to
institutional characteristics
Pregaming and SCU - Baseline
Most students pregame with hard alcohol (71%) – Beer used only 20% of time
Men and women pregame equally
Characteristic Men Women
Quantity consumed while pregaming (average)
4.1 drinks 3.0 drinks
Time drinking 22 min. 22 min.
Average BAC .07 .06
# drinks consumed after pregaming
4.3 drinks 3.2 drinks
Does Pregaming Change Across the Year?
Pregaming appears to become more popular after entering college 40% of students who drink pregame at
least ¼ of their drinking episodes (vs. 25% at baseline)
92% drink hard alcohol Average quantity remains about the
same (3.5 drinks) and they consume it in an average of 35 minutes
Any Consequences?
Problem As Direct Result of Pregaming
Welcome Weekend
End of Fall Qtr.
Blackouts 10% 33%
Legal <1% 2%
Required medical care
1% 4%
Arguments 3% 6%
Received a policy violation
n/a 10%
Why do SCU Students Pregame?
Do it for the social aspect (64%)
Like how it gets them drunk quickly (60%)
It is less expensive than going out (27%)
It is a way to avoid getting caught (20%)
Can start drinking earlier in the day (14%)
A Summary
Basic research showed us several important facts Pregaming is a problem It is intensified by the college
environment It is associated with real consequences It is not perceived as a problem by our
students
Applying this Information
Information from our institutional research was used to develop an intervention program to target pregaming on campus
Project (the “Hard and Fast Program”) recently funded by the U.S. Department of Education and is wrapping up its first year SCU is the performance site, although the
grant was awarded to Palo Alto University (formerly Pacific Graduate School of Psychology)
Current Programs not Sufficient
Our online alcohol education program, which incoming freshmen are required to take before the Fall Quarter, doesn’t adequately address pregaming
Pregaming can be addressed in BASICS (MI), but it is done on the individual level and reaches a much smaller number of students
Hard and Fast Program
Social norming/peer-facilitated motivational interviewing program designed to reduce pregaming in entering freshmen Media designed to provide information
about norms of pregaming prior to entering college, as well as education about drinking too much over too brief a time
Hard and Fast Program (cont.)
In addition to social norms campaign, some students participate in peer-facilitated groups run by a team consisting of one SCU undergraduate with EMT training and a first year doctoral student from the PGSP-Stanford PsyD Consortium (at Palo Alto University)
Study Design
Entering Freshmen
Usual Care (no exposure
to social norms posters in own dorm)
No Peer Facilitated Intervention
Social Norms ExposureIn Own Dorm
Peer Facilitated Intervention
Examples of Media from the Hard and Fast Program
Status
Recruited 581 freshmen to the study for Year 1
70% completed follow-up questionnaire at the end of fall, winter, and spring quarters Have had difficulties with participation in
peer groups but will adjust for Year 2 of study
Assessment Plan
Four groups: Social Norms (SN) only, Social Norms plus Peer-Facilitated Groups (SN+PFG), and two control groups
Within-academic-year comparisons of groups Between-academic-year comparisons to
control for bias of students who may be exposed to SN by visiting other residence halls No SN plan currently at SCU, and rates of
drinking and pregaming amongst entering freshmen have not differed over the past 4 years
Assessment Plan (cont’d)
Objective 1: Evaluate the effectiveness of both components (SN campaign and PFG)
Goal: The intervention (SN and/or SN+PFG) will produce at least a 5% reduction in pregaming (frequency and quantity) in the quarter in which it is being implemented
Will look at pregaming frequency, beverage of choice while pregaming, pregaming motives, and frequency of overall drinking behaviors
Assessment Plan (cont’d)
Objective 2: Evaluate effectiveness of SN and PFG components through the entire year (longitudinal) Goal: Either SN and/or SN+PFG will
produce sustainable reductions in pregaming (at least 5%) relative to the control condition
Assesssment Plan (cont’d)
Objective 3: Evaluate differences relative to alcohol policy violations Goal: Intervention residences (either SN
or SN+PFG) will have at least 5% fewer alcohol-related policy violations as a result of the intervention
Assessment Plan (cont’d)
Objective 4: Evaluate differences in documented calls to EMS Goal: Intervention residences (either SN or
SN+PFG) will have at least 5% fewer EMS calls and transports relative to the control conditions
Will look at qualitative differences in where on-campus students are receiving EMS care and documented intoxicated levels by condition
What Does this Mean for You?
Portability and cost effectiveness This could perhaps be done for less than
$5,000 per year if you take out the research component
Use graduate students for the small groups
Role of posters
Implementation
Developing your own research program is not as daunting as it may seem
Key ingredients: Find a faculty member who is willing to partner
in the project If possible, collaborate with university
administrators Try to work data collection into university
activities, if possible Online methods can be very effective and cost
effective if the right incentives are used and recruitment/retention is strategic (i.e., SurveyMonkey)
Try to involve students in the process
Implementation (cont.)
Instrument itself: Keep instrument brief, yet comprehensive Make the wording clear and use a fixed-
response format Enlist students to help with development
Critical for identifying high-risk practices on your campus and correct terminology (i.e., pregaming/prepartying/ front-loading)
Pilot test before administering large-scale
Take-Home Message
Without your own research, you’re likely to miss emerging trends (published and/or national data are slower)
Pregaming is most likely a problem on your campus But do your own research to see if it
actually is a problem, and its significance
Acknowledgments
These projects could not be done without the collaboration with Palo Alto University (formerly Pacific Graduate School of Psychology), and support of the Office of Student Life at Santa Clara University
Special thanks to Dr. Amie Haas of Palo Alto University; and Matthew Duncan, Ngoc Nguyen-Mains and Nora Jamison-Danko of SCU
Special thanks as well to the students from SCU and the PGSP-Stanford PsyD Consortium (part of Palo Alto University) who assist in our data collection and follow-up processes
Contact Information Amie Haas, Ph.D.—Principal
InvestigatorPGSP-Stanford PsyD ConsortiumPalo Alto University1791 Arastradero Rd.Palo Alto, CA 94304E-mail: AHaas@paloaltou.edu
Alison Bateman, Ph.D.—Assistant Director and Supervisor of Peer FacilitatorsSanta Clara University Wellness Center500 El Camino RealSanta Clara, CA 95053408-554-4409E-mail: ABateman@scu.edu
Matthew Duncan—Associate DirectorAssociate Dean, Office of Student LifeSanta Clara University500 El Camino RealSanta Clara, CA 95053408-554-4583E-mail: MDuncan@scu.edu
Ngoc Nguyen-Mains—Assistant DirectorAssistant Dean, Office of Student Life Santa Clara University500 El Camino RealSanta Clara, CA 95053408-554-4583E-mail: NMNguyenMains@scu.edu
For a copy of this presentation, please visit:
http://cms.scu.edu/studentlife/osl/jaspapregaming.cfm
Recommended