Assessing College Students' Subjective Ratings of an Intervention for Risky Spring Break Drinking

Introduction: There is growing support for the utility and efficacy of interventions targeting college student risky drinking and related consequences, particularly during predictably high risk drinking occasions such as 21^st birthday celebrations and Spring Break (SB). Given that interventions tend to focus mainly on drinking outcomes, little is known about students’ subjective experience of and response to these interventions, both in regard to content and method of delivery (e.g., web vs. in-person delivery). The purpose of the present study was to assess students’ ratings of satisfaction with an intervention designed to target Spring Break drinking and to examine whether these results differed based on prior drinking. An understanding of students’ satisfaction with the information they receive could impart important insight into mediators of intervention efficacy, as well as offer ideas for content development. Further, identifying for whom different modes of intervention work best is beneficial. Method: Participants included 501 college students (56.1% women, average age 20.5) planning to go on a SB trip with friends and planning to drink heavily on at least one day of SB. Participants completed an online assessment approximately one to two months prior to SB. Participants were randomized to view intervention material either online or during a facilitator-led personalized feedback session. All participants completed satisfaction surveys immediately after receiving the intervention. Drinking level at baseline was examined as a moderator between mode of intervention and satisfaction. Results: Mode of intervention was associated with participant satisfaction such that facilitator-led interventions tended to be rated as more impactful, engaging, and satisfying compared to web-delivered interventions (p<.001). Participants’ typical past three-month drinking was not, itself, associated with ratings of intervention satisfaction. However, past three-month drinking moderated the relationship between satisfaction and intervention method. Specifically, the in-person facilitator-led intervention tended to be rated more favorably than the web-delivered intervention, however this was less the case among participants who reported elevated prior drinking. Conclusion: Results indicate that students are open to receiving intervention information, possibly reflecting an acknowledgment of the benefit of such information. However, some students may also be reactive to a lab-based intervention, indicating possible iatrogenic effects of an in-person intervention and affirming the benefit of innovative modes of intervention delivery.