Efficacy of an alcohol-focused intervention for improving adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and HIV treatment outcomes – a randomised controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little research has examined whether alcohol reduction interventions improve antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence and HIV treatment outcomes. This study assesses the efficacy of an intervention for reducing alcohol use among HIV patients on ART who are hazardous/harmful drinkers. Specific aims include adapting a blended Motivational Interviewing (MI) and Problem Solving Therapy (PST) intervention for use with HIV patients; evaluating the efficacy of the intervention for reducing alcohol consumption; and assessing counsellors' and participants' perceptions of the intervention. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial will evaluate the intervention among ART patients in public hospital-based HIV clinics in Tshwane, South Africa. We will recruit patients who are HIV-positive, on ART for at least 3 months, and classified as harmful/hazardous drinkers using the AUDIT-3. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Patients in the experimental group will receive the MI-PST intervention to reduce harmful/hazardous alcohol use. Patients in the equal-attention wellness intervention group will receive an intervention focused on addressing health risk behaviours. Patients in the control condition will receive treatment as usual. Participants will complete an interviewer-administered questionnaire at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation to assess alcohol consumption, ART adherence, physical and mental health. We will also collect biological specimens to test for recent alcohol consumption, CD4 counts and HIV RNA viral loads. The primary outcome will be reduction in the volume of alcohol consumed. Secondary outcomes include reduction in harmful/hazardous use of alcohol, reduction in biological markers of drinking, increase in adherence rates, reductions in viral loads, and increases in CD4 T-cell counts. A process evaluation will ascertain counsellors' and participants' perceptions of the acceptability and effectiveness of the interventions. DISCUSSION: We have obtained ethical approval and approval from the study sites and regional and provincial health departments. The study has implications for clinicians, researchers and policy makers as it will provide efficacy data on how to reduce harmful/hazardous alcohol consumption among HIV patients and will shed light on whether reducing alcohol consumption impacts on HIV treatment adherence and other outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Register Number: PACTR201405000815100.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".