Evaluating two brief substance-use interventions for mandated college students.

Helene R White, Thomas J Morgan, Lisa A Pugh, Katarzyna Celinska, Erich W Labouvie, Robert J Pandina
{"title":"Evaluating two brief substance-use interventions for mandated college students.","authors":"Helene R White,&nbsp;Thomas J Morgan,&nbsp;Lisa A Pugh,&nbsp;Katarzyna Celinska,&nbsp;Erich W Labouvie,&nbsp;Robert J Pandina","doi":"10.15288/jsa.2006.67.309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluated two brief personal feedback substance-use interventions for students mandated to the Rutgers University Alcohol and Other Drug Assistance Program for Students (ADAPS): (1) a brief motivational interview (BMI) intervention and (2) a written feedback-only (WF) intervention. A key question addressed by this study was whether there is a need for face-to-face feedback in the context of motivational interviewing to affect changes in substance-use behaviors or whether a written personal feedback profile is enough of an intervention to motivate students to change their substance use.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample consisted of 222 students who were mandated to ADAPS, were eligible for the study, and completed the 3-month follow-up assessment. Eligible students completed a baseline assessment from which a personal feedback profile was created. They were then randomly assigned to the BMI or WF condition. Students were followed 3 months later.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Students in both interventions reduced their alcohol consumption, prevalence of cigarette and marijuana use, and problems related to alcohol and drug use between baseline and follow-up. There were no differences between the two intervention conditions in terms of any substance-use outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results suggest that, under these circumstances and with these students, assessment and WF students changed similarly to those who had an assessment and WF within the context of a BMI. Given the fact that the former is less costly in terms of time and personnel, written profiles may be found to be a cost-effective means of reducing alcohol and drug use and related problems among low- to moderate-risk mandated college students. More research is needed with mandated students to determine the efficacy of feedback interventions and to isolate the effects of interventions from the effects of being caught and being reprimanded to treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":17092,"journal":{"name":"Journal of studies on alcohol","volume":"67 2","pages":"309-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15288/jsa.2006.67.309","citationCount":"147","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of studies on alcohol","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2006.67.309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 147

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated two brief personal feedback substance-use interventions for students mandated to the Rutgers University Alcohol and Other Drug Assistance Program for Students (ADAPS): (1) a brief motivational interview (BMI) intervention and (2) a written feedback-only (WF) intervention. A key question addressed by this study was whether there is a need for face-to-face feedback in the context of motivational interviewing to affect changes in substance-use behaviors or whether a written personal feedback profile is enough of an intervention to motivate students to change their substance use.

Method: The sample consisted of 222 students who were mandated to ADAPS, were eligible for the study, and completed the 3-month follow-up assessment. Eligible students completed a baseline assessment from which a personal feedback profile was created. They were then randomly assigned to the BMI or WF condition. Students were followed 3 months later.

Results: Students in both interventions reduced their alcohol consumption, prevalence of cigarette and marijuana use, and problems related to alcohol and drug use between baseline and follow-up. There were no differences between the two intervention conditions in terms of any substance-use outcomes.

Conclusions: The results suggest that, under these circumstances and with these students, assessment and WF students changed similarly to those who had an assessment and WF within the context of a BMI. Given the fact that the former is less costly in terms of time and personnel, written profiles may be found to be a cost-effective means of reducing alcohol and drug use and related problems among low- to moderate-risk mandated college students. More research is needed with mandated students to determine the efficacy of feedback interventions and to isolate the effects of interventions from the effects of being caught and being reprimanded to treatment.

评估强制大学生的两种简短药物使用干预措施。
目的:本研究评估了罗格斯大学学生酒精和其他药物援助计划(ADAPS)授权的两种简短的个人反馈药物使用干预措施:(1)简短的动机访谈(BMI)干预和(2)仅书面反馈(WF)干预。本研究解决的一个关键问题是,在动机性访谈的背景下,是否需要面对面的反馈来影响物质使用行为的改变,或者书面的个人反馈档案是否足以作为一种干预措施来激励学生改变他们的物质使用。方法:选取222名被要求进行ADAPS的学生作为研究对象,并完成了为期3个月的随访评估。符合条件的学生完成了基线评估,并据此创建了个人反馈档案。然后他们被随机分配到BMI或WF组。3个月后对学生进行随访。结果:在基线和随访期间,两种干预措施中的学生的饮酒量、吸烟和大麻使用的流行率以及与酒精和药物使用相关的问题都有所减少。在任何物质使用结果方面,两种干预条件之间没有差异。结论:结果表明,在这些情况下,这些学生,评估和WF学生的变化与那些在BMI背景下进行评估和WF的学生相似。鉴于前者在时间和人力方面的成本较低,书面简介可能被认为是减少低至中等风险强制性大学生中酒精和药物使用及相关问题的一种具有成本效益的手段。需要对强制学生进行更多的研究,以确定反馈干预措施的有效性,并将干预措施的影响与被抓住和受到谴责的影响隔离开来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信