HIV Care Providers' Implementation of Routine Alcohol Reduction Support for Their Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Screening and brief intervention (SBI) for alcohol reduction is an important health promoting strategy for patients with HIV, and HIV care providers are optimally situated to support their patients' reduction efforts. We report results from analyses that use data collected from providers (n = 115) in 7 hospital-based HIV care centers in the New York City metropolitan area in 2007 concerning their routine use of 11 alcohol SBI components with their patients. Providers routinely implemented 5 or more of these alcohol SBI components if they (1) had a specific caseload (and were therefore responsible for a smaller number of patients), (2) had greater exposure to information about alcohol's effect on HIV, (3) had been in their present positions for at least 1 year, and (4) had greater self efficacy to support patients' alcohol reduction efforts. Findings suggest the importance of educating all HIV care providers about both the negative impact of excessive alcohol use on patients with HIV and the importance and value of alcohol SBIs. Findings also suggest the value of promoting increased self efficacy for at least some providers in implementing alcohol SBI components, especially through targeted alcohol SBI training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".