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