Challenging Pregaming Expectations in Entering Freshmen

1. Challenging Pregaming Expectations in Entering Freshmen Alison Bateman, Ph.D. Wellness Center Santa Clara University JASPA Summer Institute, July 2010

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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”

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. National Statistics

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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?”

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Pregaming and SCU - Baseline • Most students pregame with hard alcohol (71%) – Beer used only 20% of time • Men and women pregame equally

27. 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

28. Any Consequences?

29. Why do SCU Students Pregame?

30. 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

31. 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)

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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)

35. Study Design Entering Freshmen Social Norms Exposure In Own Dorm Usual Care (no exposure to social norms posters in own dorm) No Peer Facilitated Intervention Peer Facilitated Intervention

36. Examples of Media from the Hard and Fast Program

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. Amie Haas, Ph.D.—Principal Investigator PGSP-Stanford PsyD Consortium Palo Alto University 1791 Arastradero Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 E-mail: AHaas@paloaltou.edu Alison Bateman, Ph.D.—Assistant Director and Supervisor of Peer Facilitators Santa Clara University Wellness Center 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053 408-554-4409 E-mail: ABateman@scu.edu Matthew Duncan—Associate Director Associate Dean, Office of Student Life Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053 408-554-4583 E-mail: MDuncan@scu.edu Ngoc Nguyen-Mains—Assistant Director Assistant Dean, Office of Student Life Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053 408-554-4583 E-mail: NMNguyenMains@scu.edu Contact Information

50. For a copy of this presentation, please visit: http://cms.scu.edu/studentlife/osl/ jaspapregaming.cfm