Magnitude of and Trends in Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity Among U.S. College Students Ages 18-24, 1998-2005

ABSTRACT. Objective: Although major depressive disorder (MDD) and heavy episodic drinking (HED, 4+/5+ drinks in a single sitting for women/men) are common among young adults in college, the relationship between the two remains unclear. This study examined the association between MDD and HED in this population, the effect of gender on this association, and whether comorbid MDD and heavy alcohol use are associated with higher rates of mental health treatment engagement. Method: The study comprised 61,561 (65.3% female) undergraduate students who answered an online survey on depression, alcohol use, and treatment engagement in the past year. Hierarchical linear regressions examined the association between MDD and alcohol use (HED and peak blood alcohol concentration [pBAC]) and whether gender moderated these associations. Logistic regressions were then conducted to examine the influence of MDD, heavy alcohol use, and gender on treatment engagement. Results: Students with MDD reported more frequent HED and higher pBAC than did students without MDD; this was especially true for female students. Rates of treatment engagement were higher among women than men, among students with MDD than students without MDD, and among female students with HED than women without HED. Conclusions: The presence of an association between MDD and heavy alcohol use suggests the need for systematic screenings of both conditions. Low rates of treatment engagement in college students with MDD and heavy alcohol use calls for the development of strategies to engage this high-risk group in treatment. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 77, 620-628, 2016)

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in the Relationships Among Major Depressive Disorder, Heavy Alcohol Use, and Mental Health Treatment Engagement Among College Students

Pedrelli

Borsari

Lipson

et al. 2016

“…H EAVY DRINKING (e.g., consuming four or more standard drinks on an occasion) is seen in almost half of college students, and alcohol use disorders are observed in about 20% of 18-to 29-year-olds (Hingson et al, 2009;Johnston et al, 2015;Kessler et al, 2005). Such heavy drinking contributed to injuries in more than 10% of college students and overall shortens life spans by about 10% in the general population (Hingson et al, 2009;Lundin et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Low Level of Response to Alcohol-Based Heavy Drinking Prevention Program: One-Year Follow-Up

Schuckit

Smith

Clausen

et al. 2016

ABSTRACT. Objective: Heavy drinking is common on college campuses, with a marked increase from high school to freshman year. Programs addressing heavy campus drinking often personalize prevention protocols to fi t a student's demography and prior drinking characteristics. Few efforts have individualized approaches to address a person's vulnerability through his or her low level of response (low LR) to alcohol. Method: This article describes the recently completed 55-week outcome in drinking quantities and problems for the >90% of 500 participants in a prevention program at a U.S. university (62% female, mean age = 18 years) who completed a 4-week series of 50-minute videos delivered via the Internet. We evaluated whether, for low LRs, participation in an educational approach that focused on a low LR (the LR-based [LRB] condition) was associated with better outcomes than a state-of-the-art (SOTA) general education or with a no-intervention control condition. Results: Using a mixed-design analysis of variance and focusing on the most closely ethnically matched high and low LR pairs, students with low LRs in the LRB condition demonstrated the greatest decreases in usual and maximum drinks over the 55 weeks, especially when compared with closely ethnically matched students with high LRs. Low LR controls showed the highest drinking values over time. Conclusions: This study underscores the potential importance of targeting a person's specifi c preexisting vulnerability toward heavy drinking when he or she enters college. The approach can be used in a relatively inexpensive protocol of video education sessions delivered via the Internet. (J. Stud.

“…For example, brief motivational interventions have shown efficacy in reducing overall drinking and related consequences in some studies (e.g., Marlatt et al, 1998;Murphy et al, 2004;White et al, 2007), but other studies have observed reductions in drinking but not consequences (e.g., Carey et al, 2010;Larimer et al, 2001;Turrisi et al, 2009). Overall, although significant advances have been made to combat risky drinking and problems during the first year of college, the consensus among prevention scientists and college administrators is that our interventions can continue to be strengthened (Hingson et al, 2005(Hingson et al, , 2009.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dual-Process Examination of Alcohol-Related Consequences Among First-Year College Students

Mallett

Turrisi

Cleveland

et al. 2015

ABSTRACT. Objective:Despite showing reductions in college student drinking, interventions have shown some inconsistency in their ability to successfully decrease consequences. With the goal of improving prevention efforts, the purpose of this study was to examine the role of consequence-specific constructs, in addition to drinking, that influence students' experiences with alcohol-related problems. The study examined how drinking and protective behaviors mediated the relationships between students' willingness to experience consequences, intentions to avoid them, and four categories of alcohol-related problems (physiological, social, sexual, and academic). Method: First-year college student drinkers (n = 2,024) at a large northeastern university completed surveys during the fall and spring of their freshman year. Results: As expected, different patterns of associations emerged for physiological and nonphysiological consequences. When physiological consequences (e.g., hangover, vomiting) were examined, drinking significantly mediated the effect of willingness on the consequences. Drinking-specific protective behaviors indirectly influenced consequences through drinking behaviors whereas general protective behaviors did not. When nonphysiological (e.g., social, sexual, academic) consequences were examined, drinking and general protective behaviors emerged as significant mediators of the effects of willingness and intentions on the consequences, whereas drinking-specific protective behaviors did not. Conclusions: The results suggest that prevention efforts (e.g., personalized feedback) could be tailored to address specific types of protective behaviors as well as specific types of consequences frequently experienced by college students. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 76, 862-871, 2015)