David Salafsky, MPH Carlos Moll, MPH Peggy Glider, Ph.D. The University of Arizona

Transcription

1 Comparison of an In-Class vs. Online Alcohol Diversion Program to Reduce Alcohol Consumption and Negative Consequences Among College Students: Findings from a 2-year study David Salafsky, MPH Carlos Moll, MPH Peggy Glider, Ph.D. The University of Arizona

2 Background n Diversion program began with AA-based 1-hour groups led by students in recovery n 1988 New staff member did literature review and identified two models to incorporate: Marlatt (Skill Building) and Perkins & Berkowitz (Social Norms). New program (Student Health Alcohol and Drug Education [SHADE] was increased to two 1-hour sessions led by graduate students n 1995 Incorporated more of Marlatt s work through a curriculum developed at the University of Wisconsin. Moved to two 2-hour sessions taught by professional staff

3 Background n 2000 New staff hired and given the task of reviewing literature and updating program. Incorporated elements of BASICS, focusing on risk reduction. Moved to three 2-hour sessions n Through all changes, no evaluation was conducted due to lack of funding for staff and incentives

4 Background n 2005 Dean of Students expressed interest in moving to an online diversion program. Before making change, Campus Health wanted to test efficacy of existing program against online programming n June Received U.S. Department of Education grant to test these two modalities

5 In-class Format n 6 hour class (3 sessions over 3 weeks) n Average class size = 15 students n Participatory n 5 different instructors n Standard lesson plan, with potential for variation due to discussion and instructor

6 On-line Format n Third Millennium Classrooms n Under the Influence n 2-3 hours to complete n Conducted individually online anywhere n No potential for content variability

7 In-class Content Standard drinks BAC calculation Alcohol in the body Physiological effects Moderation skills/protective strategies Normative feedback Negative consequences

8 Online Content e-chug Levels of alcohol use Alcohol and other drugs BAC calculation Consequences of misuse Tools for change

9 Evaluation Methods n Random assignment n Consent n Baseline (in-person for both groups) n 3-month online follow-up

10 Survey Instrument n Demographics n Alcohol consumption measures n Protective factors n Stages of change n Norms perceptions n Negative consequences

11 Sample n Diversion referrals from Residence Life & Dean of Students n Total diversion referrals: Online = 537 In-class = 504 n Total baseline: Online = 430 (80.1% of baselines) In-class = 449 (89.1% of baselines) n Total matched pairs: Online = 264 (64.7% of baselines) In-class = 286 (71.3% of baselines)

12 Demographics n 63% Male n Average age = 19 n 80% Live in residence halls n 78% Freshmen n 83% Caucasian n 28% Greek affiliation n No significant differences between groups

13 Outcomes n Both formats effective n Significant reductions in: u Usual # drinks u Nights they party u Perception of peer drinking u Protective behaviors u Negative consequences

14 Modality Comparisons BAC Comparison Online In-class Baseline Post

15 Frequency of 5 or more drinks Online In-class % 1-2 times % 3-5 times % 6 or more Pre Post p- value Pre Post p- value ns

16 Comparing of Heavy Drinkers Defined as usually having > 6 drinks when they party Approximately half of each group Programming focuses on harm and risk reduction Higher risk group

17 Alcohol Use in Heavy Drinkers n All drinking behaviors improved for both online and in-class groups: u Drinks per week u Drinks they usually have when they party u Drinks last time they drank u Drinks per hour last time they drank u BAC last time they drank

18 Protective Factors in Heavy Drinkers % Who stop drinking 1-2 hours before going home Pre Post Online In-class Significant improvements for the in-class group only

19 % who alternate with non-alcoholic beverages Online In-class Pre Post Significant improvements for the in-class group only

20 % who set a limit on the number of drinks they will have Online In-class Pre Post Significant improvements for the in-class group only

21 % women who pace themselves to 1 or fewer drinks per hour Pre Post Online In-class Significant improvements for the in-class group only * Based on women who usually have 5 or more drinks

22 % men who pace themselves to 2 or fewer drinks per hour Pre Post Online In-class Significant improvements for the in-class group only

23 Negative Consequences in Heavy Drinkers % who had a headache/hangover past 30 days Online In-class Pre Post Significant improvements for the in-class group only

24 % who got sick or threw up in the past 30 days Pre Post Online In-class Significant improvements for the in-class group only

25 % who were warned about their alcohol use by a health care provider in the past 30 days Pre Post Online In-class Significant improvements for the in-class group only

26 % who were late to work or school in the past 30 days Online In-class Pre Post Significant improvements for both groups

27 % who missed work or school in the past 30 days Pre Post Online In-class Significant improvements for both groups

28 % who got into trouble at work or school in the past 30 days Online In-class Pre Post Significant improvements for both groups

29 Limitations n No control over online content n Differences other than modality n Multiple in-class instructors n Difficulty with follow-up n Relatively short follow-up period (3 months)

30 Lessons Learned n Both formats were effective n In-class had more impact on: u Frequency of heavy drinking & BAC u Protective behaviors u Heavy drinkers as a group

31 Next Steps n Based on evaluation, online component (e-chug) was added to in-class format n Develop online curriculum based on inclass components n Continue evaluation of revised diversion programming

32 Contact Information David Salafsky Carlos Moll ext. 202 Peggy Glider