Beginning in Fall 2012, Partners in Prevention began publishing monthly research briefs. Each month, PIP members and campus administrators will receive a one-page research brief to keep key players updated on the most recent trends in the health and safety behaviors of Missouri college students.
Click on a brief for more information!
Click on a brief for more information!
Click on a brief for more information!
*Please note that there was a data error shared in the original Volume 3, Number 3 regarding the number of students who used marijuana in the past year. This is the corrected research brief.
Click on a brief for more information!
Partners in Prevention (PIP) is a consortium of 21 college and university campuses across Missouri devoted to improving the health and safety of Missouri college students. This is the third in a series of briefs on the most critical public health issues in Missouri higher education. We define critical issues as the behaviors on campus which cause threats to the safety of our students on a daily or weekly basis. Power-based personal violence (PBPV), defined as any violence motivated by the desire to assert power, to control, and/or to intimidate in order to harm another person, is a problem on campuses nationwide. PBPV includes relationship/partner violence, rape/sexual assault, stalking and other harassment, as well as the use of predatory drugs. While not all aspects of PBPV are captured in our statewide data, the annual Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS) gathers data about non-consensual sexual contact and has expanded questions on stalking behaviors and tactics on the 2016 survey.
The more inclusive term PBPV is used to recognize that violence happens to persons of all genders and sexual orientations; however, MCHBS and national data demonstrate that marginalized groups, including women, people of color, and people who identify as part of the LGBTQ community, are more likely to be victims of PBPV than majority groups, like men or persons who identify as heterosexual. A report by the U.S. Department of Justice found that 1 in 5 women and 1 in 16 men will experience non-consensual sexual contact during their college careers*. In 2015, 17% of Missouri college students reported having experienced “non-consensual sexual contact” at some point in their lives, and approximately 4% of students reported experiencing non-consensual sexual contact within the last year. Given that the majority of students do not report PBPV, more Missouri students likely experienced assaults than MCHBS data indicates; however, even using our more conservative frequency of 4% yields alarming results.With a combined enrollment of over 204,000 students at the 21 campuses, Missouri college students were assaulted at a rate of about one student every hour of every day in 2015.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, survivors are less likely to report PBPV if they know their perpetrators, and perpetrators are statistically more likely to be acquaintances than strangers. As reporting systems and requirements, such as the Clery Act and Title IX, continue to improve, we are better informed about stranger violence, as reflected by the majority of Clery reports describing unknown perpetrators and asking for assistance in identifying them. However, other PBPV still happens. The best way to learn more about acquaintance violence happening to college students is to provide confidential resources that students can easily access without launching investigations or mandatory reporting, in addition to providing Title IX resources, either on campus or in the local community. Additionally, many schools are implementing evidence-based bystander violence prevention programs, such as Green Dot or STEP UP, to reduce instances of PBPV on their campuses. Making it clear that PBPV will not be tolerated on campus also creates a more supportive environment for survivors, which may positively impact reporting rates.
Educating against common misperceptions is important; however, we must be careful not to invalidate the experiences of survivors of stranger violence. For example, while data tells us that about 80% of rapes and sexual assaults are perpetrated by acquaintances, messaging such as “the rapist isn’t a masked stranger” or “the perpetrator’s not hiding in the bushes”** could be interpreted as making light of or ignoring that stranger violence does still happen. In order to educate about, respond to and prevent non-consensual sexual contact, campuses need to train staff to respond in a trauma-informed way.
As Missouri’s consortium in promoting healthy behaviors among college students, Partners in Prevention (PIP) is dedicated to creating safe and healthy campus environments, including addressing student self-harm. PIP implements the annual Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS), which contains questions regarding mental health and suicidal ideation. Although suicide is an issue on all college campuses, training and prevention programs are largely underrepresented. Ask Listen Refer (ALR), a suicide prevention training created in 2009 for campuses across Missouri, offers information that teaches faculty, staff, and students how to identify risk factors and warning signs of suicide. ALR also guides participants through the process of talking to individuals who are at risk and helping them find resources in their area. This is the second in a series of briefs on the most critical public health issues in Missouri higher education. We define critical issues as the behaviors on campus which cause threats to the safety of our students on a daily or weekly basis.
During the 20 minute ALR training program, participants learn about signs and symptoms of suicidal behavior, common myths about suicide, how to ask if someone is considering suicide, and how to make trauma-informed resource referrals. Participants are given a pre and post-test to evaluate knowledge, attitude, and willingness to intervene, and they have the opportunity to take 3 follow-up surveys to assess the overall use and effectiveness of the program.
Data from ALR participants suggest that it is a promising practice to teach students, faculty, and staff about how to help a friend or student who may be considering suicide. When comparing student, faculty, and staff pre-test and post-test scores, there is a significant rate of change which suggests that individuals are learning more about suicide prevention while taking the training. Out of a possible 40 points, both pre-test and post-test scores ranged almost the entire spectrum from 8 to 40 points. Averaged pre-test scores for the last 66 months of 2015 ranged from 27.3 to 30 points, while averaged post-test scores ranged from 34.6 to 36.9 points. Students and staff showed the greatest increases in scores with both groups having a percent increase of 27%.
According to the 2015 MCHBS data, 40% of students reported having ever had suicidal thoughts, and 15% of students reported having suicidal thoughts within the last year. Two percent of Missouri college students reported attempting suicide in the last year, but only 32% of students sought assistance for suicidal thoughts or attempts in the past year. While the majority of students (53%) are still not seeking assistance for suicidal thoughts and attempts, MCHBS data suggests an improvement in the last year, as 67% of students did not seek assistance in 2014. Additionally, 31% of students reported being concerned about a friend having suicidal thoughts and 48% of them reported they would be willing to complete an online suicide prevention training program (ALR). When asked if students were aware of the ALR program, 27% of students answered “yes.” Nineteen percent of students also utilized ALR at least once in the past year, 5% twice and 2% more than twice when concerned about an individual at risk for suicide.
Of the 21 PIP campuses, 20 participate in the ALR program. For the purposes of this brief, 5 schools are considered active participants in the ALR program, meaning that they had at least 200 participants from their campus in 2015. Comparing these active schools to the rest of the PIP campuses reveals no difference in suicidal ideation or attempts; however, these students do show an increased awareness of the programs on their campuses. Students at active ALR schools were slightly more likely to report being concerned about a friend having suicidal thoughts in the past year than students from other schools (33% vs. 30%) and were more likely to report having heard of ALR than students from less active schools (36% vs. 24%). Interestingly, students from active ALR schools did not show much difference in their likelihood of discussing suicide with someone at risk of suicide or referring someone at risk to local resources. Some of these differences could be accounted for by higher rates of staff and faculty participation on some campuses, meaning that more outreach to students is needed.
According to the National Center for Injury Prevention, suicide is the second leading cause of death for college-aged young adults (ages 15-34). With 15% of Missouri students self-reporting suicidal ideations and 31% of students being concerned about a friend within the last year, suicide prevention is a priority for PIP. Furthermore, over 50% of Missouri students said they would likely bring up the topic of suicide with someone who may be at risk. This willingness means Missouri students are at a great starting point when it comes to addressing mental health and improving their own mental health.
Even though students are more likely to turn to their friends first when seeking help, faculty and staff on Missouri college campuses have unique access to students, and these relationships can be utilized to help address mental health issues. Despite the fact that ALR is designed to reach all of these audiences, not all of those who are in a position to intervene with high-risk or at-risk individuals are taking advantage of this resource. For more information, please visit the ALR website at www.asklistenrefer.org.
Missouri Partners in Prevention (PIP) is a statewide coalition of 21 campuses dedicated to creating healthy and safe college and university environments. PIP implements the Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS) each year, which helps to measure student health behaviors and perceptions. This is the first in a series of briefs on the most critical public health issues in Missouri higher education. We define critical issues as the behaviors on campus which cause threats to the safety of our students on a daily or weekly basis. Reducing high-risk behaviors, such as binge-drinking*, remains a core focus, despite improvements in trend data since 2011. Analysis of 2015 MCHBS data indicated noticeable differences in binge drinking rates among student groups.
Binge-drinking has been linked to many health and behavior issues, including alcohol poisoning, physical assault, sexual abuse, injury, and academic problems. Because of these health and behavior issues, it is a main focus for many campus programs. PIP schools consistently rank below the national average of binge-drinking on college campuses, and PIP schools have seen a 22% reduction in reported binge-drinking rates from 2011 to 2015, with the statewide average decreasing from 31% to 24% in those five years.
Despite this overall positive trend, binge-drinking rates on individual campuses in 2015 ranged from 3% to 37%. When further investigating binge-drinking and risky drinking behaviors, many campuses requested information on specific subpopulations. The most requested groups were students who identified as part of a sorority or fraternity (Greek) versus those who did not (non-Greek), students who identified their race as white or Caucasian (majority) versus students who identified as a minority race (minority)**, student leaders (leaders) versus non-student leaders, and finally student athletes versus non-athletes. Of those groups, students who identified as part of a sorority or fraternity and students who identified their race as white or Caucasian reported the most negative consequences as a result of alcohol consumption. Less significant differences are seen between student athletes and non-athletes and student leaders and non-student leaders. The table below highlights some of the negative consequences of drinking that might impact student health and academic success.
Because binge-drinking can be associated with many health and behavior concerns among college students, it is important to continually monitor and work to decrease these rates. The 2015 MCHBS reveals encouraging information with the decreasing binge-drinking rates thanks to annual monitoring and positive programs and social norming assisted by Partners in Prevention. However, certain groups, such as students participating in Greek Life on college campuses, continue to have high-rates of binge-drinking and are a higher risk for the negative consequences associated with drinking than their peers.
Partners in Prevention (PIP) works with 21 college and university campuses in the state of Missouri to improve student health behaviors. PIP gathers data annually from the Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS) to inform and improve campus programs. This brief will focus on students’ sense of belonging and their likelihood of accessing resources both on and off campus, specifically for students who identified as LGBQQ* on the 2015 MCHBS. Students who identified as transgender are not included in this brief unless they also identified their sexual orientation as LGBQQ. As sexual orientation and gender are different constructs, the stressors and experiences of the transgender student population cannot be conflated with those of LGBQQ student population.
According to the 2015 MCHBS data, 8.3% of students identified as LGBQQ**. Of those students who identified as LGBQQ, 26% did not feel a sense of belonging on their campuses, compared to 22% of students who identified as heterosexual. Students who identified as LGBQQ were also less likely than their heterosexual peers to report feeling like a member of their campus community (49% compared to 56%).
Since students’ attachment to campus may impact their perceived access to and utilization of resources, the relationship between a student’s sexual orientation and the likelihood of going to specific resources, both on- and off-campus, was explored. While many resources showed no significant difference in likelihood of use, certain resources, such as faculty or professors, mental health professionals in the community, and chat rooms or online support groups, were more likely to be used by students who identified as LGBQQ than those who identified as heterosexual. Conversely, students who identified as LGBQQ reported a lower likelihood of utilizing other resources, such as religious or spiritual advisors, law enforcement, and family members, than their peers who identified as heterosexual.
Students who identified as LGBQQ are less likely than their heterosexual peers to report feeling as though they belong on their campuses or that they are active members of their campus communities. Having a dedicated space and staff for LGBQQ students, as well as having an ally group or providing access to online chat and help resources, are factors that could increase these students’ sense of belonging and connection to campus. To date, few PIP campuses are able to provide these resources. Beginning in 2016, the MCHBS will include asexual as a sexual orientation option in an attempt to decrease the high prefer not to respond rate for that question. In the future, campuses may want to consider allowing multiple responses for the sexual orientation question the MCHBS to empower students to select responses that more accurately reflect their identities.
Partners in Prevention (PIP) has been Missouri’s higher education substance abuse consortium since 2000. The coalition, made up of 21 universities in Missouri, works to promote healthy behaviors on college campuses. To gain an understanding of the current health behaviors of college students, PIP implements the Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS) each year. The information gained from the MCHBS allows PIP to learn more about the high-risk behaviors that students are engaging in, such as illicit and prescription drug misuse.
Prescription drug misuse, defined as using prescription drugs without a doctor’s consent, has been decreasing over the last 8 years from 21% in 2008 to 14% in 2015. Conversely, there has been a small increase in students who report using illicit drugs (other than marijuana) from 5.7% in 2009 to 6.5% in 2015.
The most commonly misused prescription drugs were stimulants (7.5%) and pain medication (6.9%), followed by sedative/anxiety medication (3.1%). Of the 6.5% of students previously mentioned who used illicit drugs, 3.8% reported using amphetamines, 3.0% reported using club drugs, 2.8% reported using cocaine, and inhalants, K2, and methamphetamines were each reported at 1.2%. Approximately 4.5% of students reporting misusing both prescription and illicit drugs (other than marijuana) in the last year. More than 75% of students who reported using marijuana in the last year did not use any other drugs; however, over 80% of students who reported any other drug usage also used marijuana. The data suggests that while marijuana use cannot be used to predict other drug use, misuse of prescription or illicit drugs is a strong predictor of marijuana use.
About 16% of Missouri college students are using some form of prescription or illicit drug. Most of these students are misusing prescription drugs, not illicit drugs. However, it is important to note that the majority of students who use illicit drugs are also misusing prescription drugs and using marijuana, meaning there is a small but high-risk subpopulation of polydrug users among Missouri college students. For campus programming and planning purposes, it may be important to note that stimulants and pain medications are misused significantly more often than other prescription drugs. Beginning in 2016, the MCHBS will collect data on students who misuse their own prescription drugs and the overlap of misusing prescription drugs while consuming alcohol.
Partners in Prevention, a coalition of 21 colleges and universities across the state, is dedicated to reducing high-risk behaviors among Missouri college students. Several risky behaviors involve distracted driving, which includes texting or talking on the phone while driving, eating or drinking while driving, speeding, and becoming angry while driving. Texting while driving is one of the most dangerous behaviors because it encompasses the three main types of distraction – visual, manual and cognitive. It also reduces the driver’s focus from the road more frequently and for longer periods than other distractions (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]).
Trend results from the Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS) indicate that despite decreases in texting and driving behavior since 2012, texting and driving remains a prevalent risk behavior among Missouri college students.
NHTSA reports that at least one out of every 10 traffic fatalities is a result of distracted driving; therefore, it is important that campuses continue to monitor and educate students on multiple facets of traffic safety, including distracted driving.
Since the MCHBS first began measuring texting and driving behavior in 2010, a little more than a third of Missouri college students have reported this behavior each year. Texting and driving peaked in 2012 with 44% of students reporting this behavior. By 2014, texting and driving dropped to the lowest recorded rates of 32%. However, in the past year there has been a gradual increase to 35%.
When compared to other dangerous driving behaviors, students are texting and driving at much higher rates than they are driving without seatbelts or drinking and driving. Additionally, while we have observed reductions in other driving behaviors over the past two years, texting and driving has remained relatively constant. Interestingly, students who report texting while driving also report all the other distracted driving behaviors at much higher levels.Students who text and drive are...
Continued monitoring indicates reductions in risky driving behaviors and, specifically, texting while driving. While there appear to be significant improvements since 2012, texting and driving is still disproportionately high compared to other dangerous behaviors, such as impaired driving and driving without a safety belt. It is important for campuses to continue efforts to educate their students about the dangers of text messaging and driving.
Partners in Prevention (PIP) is a consortium of 21 colleges and universities in Missouri dedicated to creating safe and healthy campuses. Since 2007, PIP has been annually implementing the Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS) to gather information about student demographics, alcohol use, drug use, and other health behaviors. Beginning in 2014, the MCHBS added questions for students who identify as sober and in recovery from alcohol and other drug addiction to better understand their experiences on campus. This brief will focus on responses from students who identified as sober and in recovery on the 2015 MCHBS, highlight the work being done on PIP campuses to support these students, and include feedback from a recent focus group with the University of Missouri-Columbia’s Sober in College (SIC), one of the current collegiate recovery programs in Missouri.
The prevalence of students at Missouri colleges and universities who identify as sober and in recovery varies widely among PIP schools, from 3-12%, with an average of 5% statewide. Also, a relatively large percent of students (4%) responded “prefer not to respond” to this question. Slightly more of these students disagree that they are a member of their campuses (21%) or that they feel a sense of belonging (24%) than the overall student population does (20% and 22%, respectively). Students who identify as sober and in recovery report wanting to feel more connected to their campuses than the overall student population (68% vs 54%). This difference in desire for increased connection to their campus communities could reflect an unmet need for creating supportive spaces and communities for students who are sober and in recovery on campus.
Despite the majority of students in recovery feeling connected to their campuses and like members of their college communities, one in three (33%) students in recovery reported considering transferring from their current college or university and 16% have thought about discontinuing their education entirely. In comparison, 25% of students who do not identify as sober and in recovery reported considering leaving their current college or university, and 14% have thought about discontinuing their education. In order to better understand what factors influence these students’ sense of belonging and membership on campus, as well as what impacts their decisions to stay enrolled, more questions will be asked to this subpopulation on the 2016 MCHBS.
One of the ways that campuses can increase success and retention of students in recovery is by ensuring the campus climate is supportive. Currently, six PIP schools have active collegiate recovery programs, each using a different model tailored to suit the needs of that campus and their students. This year, PIP began a new initiative to support these schools. MACRO, the Missouri Alliance of Collegiate Recovery Organizations, is the first organization of its kind in the state of Missouri to create a statewide network for growing and enhancing collegiate recovery support services. Its mission is to unite collegiate recovery efforts across the state and to be a top resource for Missouri schools as they build their own recovery support organizations. In doing so, we hope to increase the capacity of colleges and universities in Missouri to address recovery on their campuses, and in their communities. MACRO is currently housed at the University of Missouri-Columbia. More information can be found online at macro.missouri.edu.
As Missouri’s consortium in preventing higher education substance abuse, Partners in Prevention promotes healthy behaviors on college campuses. PIP implements the Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS) in order to gain a better understanding of health behaviors and experiences on campuses across Missouri. The survey also gathers information on the prevalence of relationship abuse experienced by Missouri college students.
Relationship abuse is a pattern of assaultive and coercive behaviors an intimate partner may use in order to gain and maintain power and control. In the 2015 MCHBS, we measured reports of several types of intimate partner abuse, including emotional-verbal, sexual, physical, mental and financial. The most common forms of abuse and those discussed in this brief include emotional, mental and physical intimate partner abuse. Sexual abuse will be addressed in subsequent briefs.
Emotional abuse includes a broad category of behavior and is the most common form of abuse reported by Missouri college students. Some forms of emotional abuse are name-calling, put-downs, threats, intimidation, doing anything to win an argument, and blaming the partner for relationship failures*. Sixteen percent (16%) of Missouri college students report ever experiencing emotional abuse and 9% in the past year. Mental abuse, also referred to as psychological abuse, is the second most common form of abuse reported by Missouri college students. It includes behaviors such as isolating individuals from friends and family, controlling where individuals go and what they do, ignoring feelings, and being forced to perform acts perceived as degrading**. Thirteen (13%) percent of Missouri college students report ever experiencing mental abuse and 7% in the past year. Physical abuse is the least common form of abuse reported and includes but is not limited to pushing, strangling, hitting, punching, slapping, kicking, preventing individuals from eating or drinking, and keeping individuals from seeking medical care***. Five (5%) percent of Missouri college students report ever experiencing physical abuse and 2% in the past year.
A substantial proportion of our students report intimate partner abuse on our campuses. At any point in their life, 42% of our students report abuse. Additionally, 23% of students report that they have experienced some form of intimate partner abuse in the past year.
The Missouri College Health Survey (MCHBS) is distributed annually to 21 campuses in the state of Missouri by Partners in Prevention (PIP). PIP is Missouri’s higher education substance abuse consortium and is dedicated to promoting health and wellness on campuses statewide. The MCHBS collects data on several different student health behaviors, including the use of marijuana. According to the 2015 MCHBS, 23% of Missouri college students reported using marijuana in the past year.
The MCHBS data show that the self-reported actual use of marijuana is drastically different than how students perceive the use of others. Data shows that while reported marijuana use over the last three years has remained relatively constant around 23%, the perception students have of other people’s use has decreased and leveled off. In 2013, students perceived that 92% of their peers had used marijuana in the last year. For the past two years, this perception decreased to 81%. Since 2013, the data shows an increase of actual marijuana use from 22% to 23%. In the last three years, perceptions about the frequency of other’s marijuana use began to change. Students reported a perception of 14% of students using marijuana 3 or more times a week in 2014; however, that same perception dropped to 6% in 2015. In 2013, students perceived/believed that 13% of students used marijuana 1-6 times per year, which has increased by 250% to 32% this year.
Through the growing discussion on the legalization of marijuana, this topic remains a staple in the discussion of student wellness. The high perception of use by other people may also contribute to the slowly increasing rate of reported use, even though the perceived rate is decreasing. Over the course of the last few years, there has been a slight increase in reported marijuana use that has coincided with a significant drop in how much students perceive their peers to be using marijuana. Between 2014 and 2015 the trend for the perceived use of other students has leveled off at a low of 81%. More updates can be found at pip.missouri.edu/research.html as future data is collected.
Missouri Partners in Prevention (PIP) implements the Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS) each year to monitor student behaviors and perceptions on a variety of health and safety topics, including tobacco use and policy. Of the 21 campuses that are part of the PIP consortium, 9 are tobacco free (6 campuses with newer tobacco free policies and 3 with tobacco policies for 3 or more years), 5 are smoke free, and 7 have somewhat restrictive policies, meaning they may only have indoor policies or designated outdoor smoking areas available on campus. It is important to note that some campuses will implement tobacco free policies this fall, but their data from the 2015 MCHBS is categorized in the somewhat restrictive policy category.
According to the 2015 MCHBS, 80% of students statewide prefer having smoke-free outdoor university areas. Student perceptions of smoking have greatly changed in the last four years, as 2012 MCHBS data showed that only 58% of students statewide preferred having smoke-free outdoor areas on campus. Since 2013, the number of students not using tobacco products has increased, while the number of those using cigarettes has steadily decreased. However, other products are becoming more popular with tobacco users. For example, hookah use increased 43% from 2012 to 2015 (14% to 20%), and e-cigarette use is up 300% (3% to 12%) statewide since 2012. Tobacco pipes and smokeless tobacco use have remained relatively stable statewide since 2010, but certain campuses saw a noticeable increase for one or both of these products in 2015.
How much does school policy influence students’ tobacco use? In order to answer this question, schools were categorized by type of tobacco policy in the following groups: tobacco free policy, tobacco free policy for at least three years, smoke-free policy and somewhat restrictive policy. Type of school policy was compared to any tobacco use in the past year, which includes the full spectrum of students who perhaps tried hookah once or twice with friends to those who use cigarettes or smokeless tobacco on a daily basis.
Perhaps unexpectedly, schools with tobacco free policies have a higher average of tobacco use (38%) than the statewide average (36%). There are several potential influencing factors for this high rate of use. Some schools very recently changed policy and may be facing some resistance to that change or haven’t had time to see any behavior change from what happened under their somewhat restrictive policies. These campuses may also have more infrequent tobacco product users that are inflating that statistic. A better indicator of the effect of tobacco free policy is the group of schools that have had policies in place for three or more years. Students from schools with established tobacco free policies reported statistically significant lower tobacco use than any other group. According to the data, there is no difference in tobacco use on campuses with smoke free policies versus those with only somewhat restrictive policies.
The MCHBS data seems to support the argument that tobacco free policies, which are the most restrictive, result in lower rates of tobacco use on campuses once they have been in place long enough to be recognized and enforced. The trend of preferring smoke-free indoor and outdoor areas continues to gain popularity with students at schools across the state, but data suggests that student behavior is not significantly impacted by smoke-free policies. It is possible that campuses with newer smoke-free policies face similar challenges as those that recently transitioned to tobacco free policy, or that implementation and enforcement of smoke-free policy pose unique challenges. Certain campuses and student behaviors around the state may also be influenced by city tobacco policies more so than campus policy. Because quitting tobacco products requires challenging behavior change, it can take several years before the benefits of policy change are evident in student behavior. As more campuses statewide switch to tobacco free policies and those already tobacco free campuses continue to consistently enforce their existing policies, this trend will be re-evaluated.
Since 2000, Missouri Partners in Prevention (PIP) has been providing training, funding and technical assistance to member campuses dedicated to creating healthy and safe college and university environments. While the focus of our statewide coalition has been on preventing high-risk and underage drinking among Missouri’s college students, the coalition is also dedicated to addressing other health behaviors such as prescription drug use, high-risk driving, tobacco use, and problem gambling. In addition, PIP also provides support and services to campuses across the state to prevent suicide and support positive mental health among college students. In the past year, Partners in Prevention has begun exploring two new growth areas: helping campuses regarding compliance with Title IX regulations and addressing the needs of students in recovery.
Last year, PIP provided the Missouri higher education community with a series of thirteen research briefs. These briefs highlighted the range of health behaviors, including high-risk drinking, driving behaviors, and health behaviors of subpopulations of students. In addition, the briefs provided information about current work being implemented in the state to address these behaviors. PIP is pleased to provide Missouri campuses with the fourth volume of research briefs. Briefs will be published monthly and include additional examination of the health behavior of subpopulations of students as well as additional key metrics of the Missouri College Health Behavior Survey, such as students’ sense of belonging and student engagement. PIP will continue to examine key health behavior issues such as alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, driving behaviors, and mental health, along with new topics, such as interpersonal violence and addressing the needs of students in recovery.
PIP has made tremendous progress since its inception in 2000. National research in college prevention is clear - campus prevention efforts that are evidence-based, comprehensive and are supported by campus administrators are the most effective strategies to reduce high risk and underage drinking and the associated negative consequences among college students. While binge and high risk drinking rates have been static nationally, Missouri rates have dropped drastically from 34% in 2007 to 24% in 2015. PIP encourages campus leaders to be vocal, visible, and visionary on issues related to alcohol, drugs, and mental health. The goal of Volume Four of the Partners in Prevention briefs is to assist campus’ understanding of the key issues facing Missouri college students, as well as how campuses are working to create healthier and safer campus communities.
First implemented in 2012, the Missouri College Student Veteran Assessment (MCSVA) was designed to better understand the role of health and wellness of student veterans in the campus community. The survey also provides information regarding perceptions of campus and community resources allocated for veterans, as well as analyzing the ease of transition from military service to academic andstudent life The MCSVA is currently administered online every fall semester to student veterans at participating coalition campuses across the state.
First implemented in 2007 by Partners in Prevention, the Missouri College Health Behavior Survey (MCHBS) is designed to understand the role of alcohol, drugs (illegal and prescription), mental health issues, and gambling on student health and wellness. The survey also provides information regarding attitudes, perceptions of other student’s behaviors, campus and community laws, and policies. The MCHBS is administered online every Spring semester to undergraduate students at all coalition campuses across the state. The Partners in Prevention Coalition helps to implement and analyze the data collected from the survey, which in turn is used to design a variety of programming at participating colleges and universities.
The Carnegie Classification system is a framework for categorizing institutional diversity in the United States. Formed by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in 1970, the Carnegie Foundation has published six updates to their original 1973 publication. These categorizations have been used to help policy analysts and researchers classify the wide variety of institutions represented in higher education. As institutions of higher education have evolved, the classification system has morphed to accurately reflect the categories of institutions.
SAMHSA’s Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) has recently released a new resources on drinking and substance abuse: Youth Marijuana Use: Consumption, Consequence, and Risk and Protective Factor Data Resources, which offers prevention practitioners a comprehensive listing of available data resources and surveys developed by and for a range of federal agencies.
CAPT has also revised three tools to highlight current research on college/campus populations:
The Nature and Correlates of Young Women's Peer-Directed Protective Behavioral Strategies
Armstrong, K., Watling, H., Buckley, L. (February 2014) Addictive Behaviors
The Burden of Alcohol Use: Excessive Alcohol Consumption and Related Consequences among College Students
White, A., Hingson, R. (2014) Alcohol Research, The Journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Dating Violence among College Students: The Risk and Protective Factors
Kaukinen, C. (February 2014) Trauma, Violence & Abuse
Improving College Campus-Based Prevention of Violence against Women: A Strategic Plan for Research Built on Multipronged Practices and Policies
Banyard, V. L. (February 2014) Trauma, Violence & Abuse
Focus On: Women and the Costs of Alcohol Use
Wilsnack, S. C., Wilsnack, R.W.(2014) Alcohol Research, The Journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Feminist Self-Defense and Resistance Training for College Students: A Critical Review and Recommendations for the Future
Gidycz, C.A., Dardis, C.M (February 2014) Trauma, Violence & Abuse
Measuring the Burden: Alcohol's Evolving Impact
Hingson, R. (2014) Alcohol Research, The Journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Campus and College Victim Responses to Sexual Assault and Dating Violence: Disclosure, Service Utilization, and Service Provision
Sabina, C., Ho, L.Y. (February 2014) Trauma, Violence & Abuse
Academic Advising via Facebook: Examining Student Help Seeking
Amador, P. & Amador, J. (April 2014) The Internet and Higher Education
College Student Drinking Research From the 1940s to the Future: Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going
Kilmer, J.R., Cronce, J.M. & Larimer, M.E. (March 2014) Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
Special Issue: Substance Use Problems and Issues in Recovery among College Students (February 2014)
Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions
Case Closed: Research Evidence on the Positive Public Health Impact of the Age 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age in the United States
DeJong, W., Blanchette, J. (March 2014) Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
Dangerous Climates: Factors Associated With Variation in Racist Hate Crimes on College Campuses
Dyke, N. (July 2014) Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
Response of Heavy-drinking Voluntary and Mandated College Students to a Peer-led Brief Motivational Intervention Addressing Alcohol Use
Mastroleo, N.R., Oakley, W., Eaton, E.M. & Borsani, B. (June 2014) The Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
College Student Perceptions of Victim Action: Will Targets of Stalking Report to Police?
Cass, A.I. & Mallicoat, S., L. (June 2014) American Journal of Criminal Justice
Randomized Controlled Trial of a Web-Delivered Personalized Normative Feedback Intervention to Reduce Alcohol-Related Risky Sexual Behavior Among College Students
Lewis, M.A., Patrick, M.E., Litt, D.M., Atkins, D.C., Kim, T., Blayney, J.A., Norris, J., George, W.H. & Larimer, M.E. (June 2014) Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Protective Behavioral Strategies Mediate Problem-Focused Coping and Alcohol Use in College Students
Walker, R. & Stephens, R.S. (June 2014) Addictive Behaviors
Developing Public Health Regulations for Marijuana: Lessons from Alcohol and Tobacco
Pacula, R. L., Kilmer, B., Wagenaar, A.C., Chaloupka, F. & Caulkins, J.P. (June 2014) American Journal of Public Health
Administrators' Perceptions of College Campus Protocols, Response, and Student Prevention Efforts for Sexual Assault
Amar, A.F., Strout,T.D., Simpson, S., Cardiello, M. & Beckford, S. (August 2014) Violence and Victims
The Effect of Enrolling in a Minority-Serving Institution for Black and Hispanic Students in Texas
Flores, S.M. & Park, T.J. (July 2014) Research in Higher Education
Effects of the Campus Watch Intervention on Alcohol Consumption and Related Harm in a University Population
Cousins, K., Connor, J.L. & Kypros, K. (July 2014) Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Local Support for Alcohol Control Policies and Perceptions of Neighborhood Issues in Two College Communities
Fairlie, A.M., DeJong, W. & Wood, M.D. (July 2014) Substance Abuse
The Effect of Enrolling in a Minority-Serving Institution for Black and Hispanic Students in Texas
Flores, S.M. & Park, T.J. (July 2014) Research in Higher Education
Are Female College Students Who are Diagnosed with Depression at Greater Risk of Experiencing Sexual Violence on College Campus?
Hossain, M.B., Memiah, P. & Adeyinka A. (August 2014) Journal of Healthcare for the Poor and Underserved
Perceptions of, and Assistance Provided to, a Hypothetical Rape Victim: Differences Between Rape Disclosure Recipients and Nonrecipients
Paul, L.P., Kehn, K., Gray, M.J. & Salapska-Gelleri, J. (August 2014) Journal of American College Health
The Role of Positive Alcohol Expectancies in Underage Binge Drinking Among College Students
McBride, N.M., Barrett, B., Moore, K.A. & Schonfeld, L. (August 2014) Journal of American College Health
Psychological Factors in Community College Student Retention
Lukea, C., Redekopb, F. & Burgina C. (August 2014) Community College Journal of Research and Practice