A randomized controlled trial of motivational interviewing tailored for heavy drinking latinxs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT [01996280]) compared the efficacy of a brief motivational interview (MI) adapted to address social stressors and cultural influences (culturally adapted MI [CAMI]) to a standard MI for heavy-drinking Latinxs. CAMI was hypothesized to reduce heavy drinking days and frequency of alcohol-related consequences more than MI. Moderators of treatment effect were explored. METHOD: Latinxs (N = 296; 63% male, M age = 41 years) who reported 2+ past month heavy drinking episodes received a single-session (MI/CAMI), with assessments at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Both conditions showed significant reductions in percent heavy drinking days and frequency of alcohol-related consequences through 12-month follow-up when compared with baseline; reductions were not significantly different by condition. Acculturation moderated treatment condition effect on alcohol-related problems at 3 months (d = .22, 95% CI [.02, .41]); less acculturated individuals experienced less frequent consequences of drinking after CAMI than MI (d = .34, 95% CI [-.60, -.08]). Discrimination moderated condition effect on frequency of alcohol-related consequences at 3 months (d = .17, 95% CI [-.33, -.01]); individuals with higher levels of baseline discrimination had less frequent consequences after CAMI than MI (d = .20, 95% CI [-.39, -.01]). CONCLUSIONS: Participants in both groups improved with no significant differences between groups. Moderation effects suggest that cultural adaptation has particular benefit for more vulnerable individuals and support the theory of change in this adaptation model. MI is efficacious with Latinx heavy drinkers and should be used to mitigate health disparities related to alcohol misuse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".