The Impact of Focusing a Program to Prevent Heavier Drinking on a Pre‐existing Phenotype, the Low Level of Response to Alcohol

Abstract

Background Heavy drinking is common during transitions from high school to college. Optimal programs for diminishing risks for high alcohol consumption often tailor the approach to the specific needs of students. This paper describes the results of an Internet-based prevention protocol that tailors the information to the risk associated with a preexisting phenotype, the Low level of Response (Low LR) to alcohol. Methods Using stratified random assignment, 454 freshmen with Low and High LR values were assigned to two education groups (LR-Based where all examples were given the context of the Low LR model of heavy drinking, or a State of the Art Group where the same lessons were taught but without an emphasis on LR) or a no-intervention Control Group. Individuals in the two education groups viewed 50-minute online videos once per week for four weeks. Changes in drinking patterns were assessed at Baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks using a 2 (LR status) by 3 (education group) by 3 (time points) ANOVA, with additional tests for ethnicity and sex. Results Low LR participants tended to decrease their usual (p<.06) and maximum (p<.05) drinks per occasion most prominently when assigned to the LR-Based protocol, while those with High LRs improved more in the State Of The Art Group. The most robust differences were seen when controlling for ethnicity. The effect sizes were small to medium. Conclusions These results support the advantages of carrying out prevention via the Internet and in tailoring the approach to a preexisting phenotype.

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

“…Following approval by the University of California, San Diego Human Protections Committee, recruitment of subjects, education condition assignments, video creations, and assessment procedures were implemented, as described in detail in an earlier article (Schuckit et al, 2015). A questionnaire using items from the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA) interview (Bucholz et al, 1994;Hesselbrock et al, 1999) was distributed to freshmen to review their demography, drinking/drug use, and related diagnoses from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994).…”

“…Considering the signifi cant race/ethnicity main effect for the 215 pairs in Table 6 and the importance of race/ethnicity in the 8-week follow-up article (Schuckit et al, 2015), data for maximum drinks were also analyzed for 145 pairs within the most closely matched EA, Asian, and White Hispanic low and high LR pairs. The raw data for maximum drinks in this subgroup are shown in Table 3, and the statistical analyses are presented in the fi fth data row in Table 6 ("Maximum quantity" in the lower half of the table), as well as graphically in Figure 2.…”

“…The second article presented the 8-week outcome for a new group of 500 freshmen who are part of the current study (Schuckit et al, 2015). For those in the LRB and SOTA conditions, 99% watched all four videos and correctly answered questions assessing comprehension.…”

The Leu72Met Polymorphism of the Prepro-ghrelin Gene is Associated With Alcohol Consumption and Subjective Responses to Alcohol: Preliminary Findings

“…Altogether, the associations reported here lead us to hypothesize that the Leu72Leu variant of this SNP may play a role in the development of AUD perhaps by predisposing some people to excessive alcohol use. A low response to alcohol has been shown to predict future higher quantities of alcohol consumed per occasion and alcohol problems (Schuckit et al, 2015). We thus hypothesize that the lower subjective effects reported by social drinkers with the Leu72Leu genotype in this study may be a predictor of future heavy drinking days and AUD.…”

Electronic communication based interventions for hazardous young drinkers: A systematic review

“…Twentytwo papers were excluded due to lack of screening before intervention delivery (Bendtsen et al, 2012;Bingham et al, 2010;Bingham et al, 2011;Collins et al, 2014;Donovan et al, 2015;Fazzino et al, 2015;Foster, Neighbors & Pai, 2015;Hagger, Lonsdale & Chatzisarantis, 2012;Haug et al, 2013;Jouriles et al, 2010;LaBrie et al, 2013;Lovecchio, Wyatt & DeJong, 2010;Murphy et al, 2010;Neighbors et al, 2010;Paschall et al, 2011a;Paschall et al, 2011b;Schuckit et al, 2012;Schuckit et al, 2015;Strohman et al, 2015;Weaver et al, 2014;Wyatt, DeJong & Dixon, 2013).…”