Cited by 90Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

A brief mindfulness intervention for college student binge drinkers: A pilot study.

Mermelstein, Liza C., Garske, John P.·2015·Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

The current study sought to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a brief mindfulness intervention aimed to reduce rates and consequences of binge drinking among college students. Participants were 76 undergraduate students assigned to a mindfulness/cue exposure group (MG) or a control/cue exposure only group (CG). Assessments were administered at the beginning of the initial session (i.e., baseline), the end of the initial session (i.e., posttreatment) and weekly for the subsequent 4 weeks. During the initial session, participants engaged in a cue exposure protocol that differed by group. The MG participated in a 60-min individual mindfulness intervention composed of didactic and experiential activities during the initial session. They participated in a mindfulness practice during the Week 2 follow-up assessment and were asked to engage in 1 hr of out-of-session mindfulness meditation each week during the 4-week assessment period. Treatment outcome examined changes in frequency of binge episodes, consequences of alcohol use, readiness to change alcohol use, alcohol refusal self-efficacy, and dispositional mindfulness between groups over time. Group differences in readiness to change, self-efficacy, and dispositional mindfulness were not found from baseline to posttreatment. Four weeks after the initial intervention, the MG reported significantly less binge episodes, fewer consequences of alcohol use, higherself-efficacy and higher dispositional mindfulness than the CG. Feasibility and participant acceptability of the intervention was demonstrated by consistent attendance, low attrition and high satisfaction ratings by the MG. Results provide initial support for the efficacy of a brief, mindfulness-based intervention among college students who report binge drinking. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/adb0000040

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mermelstein, L. C., & Garske, J. P.
Affiliations
Ohio University (US)
Venue
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
Published
2015
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
259-269
ISSN
  • 0893-164X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1501
OpenAlex
W2029961192
Cited by
90
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, binge drinking, university students, alcohol consumption, cue exposure, readiness to change, trait mindfulness, brief intervention, feasibility, treatment acceptability
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking in College, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Binge Drinking, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review