“Moving Forward with Life”: Acceptability of a Brief Alcohol Reduction Intervention for People Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In South Africa, interventions are needed to address the impact of hazardous drinking on antiretroviral therapy among people living with HIV (PLWH). Participant feedback about these interventions can identify ways to enhance their acceptability. We interviewed participants in a randomized controlled trial of a brief motivational interviewing and problem-solving therapy (MI-PST) intervention about their perceptions of this alcohol-reduction intervention. METHODS: The trial was conducted in HIV treatment clinics operating from six hospitals in the Tshwane region of South Africa. We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with a random selection of participants. Twenty-four participants were interviewed after the final intervention session and 25 at the six-month follow up. RESULTS: Participants believed that it was acceptable to offer PLWH, an alcohol reduction intervention during HIV treatment. They described how the MI-PST intervention had helped them reduce their alcohol consumption. Intervention components providing information on the health benefits of reduced consumption and building problem-solving and coping skills were perceived as most beneficial. Despite these perceived benefits, participants suggested minor modifications to the dosage, content, and delivery of the intervention for greater acceptability and impact. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the acceptability and usefulness of this MI-PST intervention for facilitating reductions in alcohol consumption among PLWH.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".