Abstract
Background: Binge drinking is a dangerous practice. Among college students, continuously high rates of binge drinking in campus result in deaths, accidents, poor academic performance, risky behavior, the development of substance use disorder, and a number of other serious problems and conditions. Collegiate Recovery Programs have shown promise as an intervention for curbing binge drinking at colleges and universities.
Objective: This paper reviews the literature on the prevalence and risks of campus binge drinking, and the relative success of interventions designed to limit it. While certain initiatives have succeeded more than others, the most appropriate strategy combines efforts on the environmental and individual level to incorporate policies tailored to the unique needs of a given collegiate community, consistent with findings on the best options for treatment and recovery in general.
Results: Evidence suggests that Collegiate Recovery Programs are an effective strategy at some schools because they provide holistic and targeted care for students in recovery. They serve a vulnerable student population whose interests are often overlooked in the wider consideration of campus binge drinking and issues of safety and bureaucratic incentives.
Conclusion: Collegiate Recovery Programs ought to be considered as at least one helpful avenue for schools considering ways to cut down elevated binge drinking rates. Tailored strategies incorporating other effective approaches should consider these programs as part of their overall focus.
Keywords: Alcohol use disorder, binge drinking, collegiate recovery programs, education, peer support, socialization.
Graphical Abstract
[PMID: 25271660]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00234.x]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31775-1] [PMID: 31478502]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448480209595713 ] [PMID: 11990979]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ps.2010.61.4.399] [PMID: 20360280]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.35946/arcr.v40.1.01]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1767-6]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.031 ] [PMID: 26477807]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000419 ] [PMID: 30359045]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2008.69.481 ] [PMID: 18612562]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000275]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9474-3 ] [PMID: 21928102]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckw033 ] [PMID: 27037330]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.028 ] [PMID: 19944925]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106267]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.59.12.1125 ] [PMID: 12470129]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ADA-100100255 ] [PMID: 10976668]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.55.3.259 ] [PMID: 9510220]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acer.13954]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000572]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.6.650-658 ] [PMID: 19433403]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.15288/jsads.2009.s16.57] [PMID: 19538913]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2014.11.004 ] [PMID: 25481690]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2014.872015] [PMID: 24634609]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2015.1117464] [PMID: 26731130]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15560350802080951]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407512448276]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/7517450]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2014.872010]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1151/ascp074145 ] [PMID: 18292710]
[PMID: 8594477]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000538 ]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0591-6]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mp.2016.131]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.02.002]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112563]