Motivational interviewing and problem‐solving therapy intervention for patients on antiretroviral therapy for HIV in Tshwane, South Africa: A randomized controlled trial to assess the impact on alcohol consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Reduction of alcohol consumption is important for people undergoing treatment for HIV. We tested the efficacy of a brief intervention for reducing the average volume of alcohol consumed among patients on HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used a two-arm multi-centre randomized controlled trial with follow-up to 6 months. Recruitment occurred between May 2016 and October 2017 at six ART clinics at public hospitals in Tshwane, South Africa. Participants were people living with HIV, mean age 40.8 years [standard deviation (SD) = 9.07], 57.5% female, and on average 6.9 years (SD = 3.62) on ART. At baseline (BL), the mean number of drinks consumed over the past 30 days was 25.2 (SD = 38.3). Of 756 eligible patients, 623 were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to a motivational interviewing (MI)/problem-solving therapy (PST) intervention arm (four modules of MI and PST delivered over two sessions by interventionists) or a treatment as usual (TAU) comparison arm. People assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the number of standard drinks (15 ml pure alcohol) consumed during the past 30 days assessed at 6-month follow-up (6MFU). FINDINGS: Of the 305 participants randomized to MI/PST, 225 (74%) completed the intervention (all modules). At 6MFU, retention was 88% for the control and 83% for the intervention arm. In support of the hypothesis, an intention-to-treat-analysis for the primary outcome at 6MFU was -0.410 (95% confidence interval = -0.670 to -0.149) units lower on log scale in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.002), a 34% relative reduction in the number of drinks. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for patients who had alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) scores ≥ 8 at BL (n = 299). Findings were similar to those of the whole sample. CONCLUSIONS: In South Africa, a motivational interviewing/problem-solving therapy intervention significantly reduced drinking levels in HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy at 6-month follow-up.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".