Lee Christine M, Neighbors Clayton, Lewis Melissa A, Kaysen Debra, Mittmann Angela, Geisner Irene M, Atkins David C, Zheng Cheng, Garberson Lisa A, Kilmer Jason R, Larimer Mary E
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington.
Department of Psychology, University of Houston.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Apr;82(2):189-201. doi: 10.1037/a0035743. Epub 2014 Feb 3.
Although recent studies have documented high-risk drinking occurring during Spring Break (SB), particularly on SB trips with friends, published intervention studies are few. In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy of event specific prevention 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).
Participants included 783 undergraduates (56.1% women; average age = 20.5 years) intending to go on a SB trip with friends as well as to drink heavily on at least 1 day of SB. Participants completed assessments prior to SB and were randomized to 1 of 5 intervention conditions: SB in-person Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS; Dimeff, Baer, Kivlahan, & Marlatt, 1999), 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 1 week after SB.
Although 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 that change in descriptive norms mediated treatment effect and reductions in drinking, whereas SB drinking intentions and positive expectancies did not.
Overall, results suggest that 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.
尽管最近的研究记录了春假期间存在高风险饮酒行为,尤其是在与朋友一起的春假旅行中,但已发表的干预研究却很少。在本研究中,我们评估了针对大学生减少春假饮酒的特定事件预防策略的效果,与一般预防策略和仅进行评估的对照组相比,同时还评估了同伴参与干预的情况以及干预实施方式(面对面与网络)。
参与者包括783名本科生(56.1%为女性;平均年龄 = 20.5岁),他们打算与朋友一起进行春假旅行,并且计划在至少一天的春假中大量饮酒。参与者在春假前完成评估,并被随机分配到5种干预条件中的一种:春假面对面大学生简短酒精筛查与干预(BASICS;迪梅夫、贝尔、基夫拉汉和马尔拉特,1999年)、春假网络BASICS、春假面对面带朋友的BASICS、春假网络带朋友的BASICS、一般BASICS或注意力控制组。在春假后1周完成随访评估。
尽管春假网络BASICS(有朋友和没有朋友的情况)以及一般BASICS干预在减少春假饮酒方面无效,但结果表明春假面对面BASICS在减少春假饮酒方面有显著的干预效果,尤其是在旅行期间。随访分析表明,描述性规范的变化介导了治疗效果和饮酒量的减少,而春假饮酒意图和积极预期则没有。
总体而言,结果表明针对春假的面对面特定干预在减少春假饮酒方面是有效的,尤其是在旅行期间。相比之下,包含与春假无关内容、基于网络或试图让朋友参与的干预在减少春假饮酒方面可能效果较差。