Findings From the Step Up, Test Up Study of an Electronic Screening and Brief Intervention for Alcohol Misuse in Adolescents and Young Adults Presenting for HIV Testing: Randomized Controlled Efficacy Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substance use, particularly binge drinking of alcohol and noninjection substance use, is associated with increased risk for HIV infection among youth, but structured substance use screening and brief intervention are not often provided as part of HIV risk reduction. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to test the efficacy of a fully automated electronic screening and brief intervention, called Step Up, Test Up, to reduce alcohol misuse among adolescents and young adults presenting for HIV testing. Secondary objectives were reduction in sexual risk and uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention. METHODS: Youth aged 16 years to 25 years who presented for HIV testing at community-based locations were recruited for study participation. Those who screened at moderate to high risk on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test were randomized (1:1) to either an electronic brief intervention or a time-attention control. The primary outcome was change in alcohol use at 1, 3, 6, and 12-month follow-ups. Negative binomial and log binomial regression analyses with generalized estimating equations were conducted to evaluate the intervention efficacy. RESULTS: Among a sample of 329 youth, there were no significant differences in alcohol use outcomes between conditions over time or at the 1, 3, 6, or 12-month time points. In terms of secondary outcomes, there was evidence of reduction in condomless insertive anal sex under the influence of alcohol and drugs at 12 months compared with 3 months in the intervention versus the attention control condition (incidence rate ratio=0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.44); however, there were no other significant differences in sexual risk and no difference in PrEP engagement. CONCLUSIONS: We found no effect of electronic brief intervention to reduce alcohol use and some effect on sexual risk among youth aged 16 years to 25 years who present for HIV testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02703116; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02703116. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12889-020-8154-6.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".