| Literature DB >> 23651704 |
Van Huy Nguyen1, Michael P Dunne, Joseph Debattista.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The application of theoretical frameworks for modeling predictors of drug risk among male street laborers remains limited. The objective of this study was to test a modified version of the IMB (Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model), which includes psychosocial stress, and compare this modified version with the original IMB model in terms of goodness-of-fit to predict risky drug use behavior among this population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23651704 PMCID: PMC3681656 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1IMB model of HIV prevention behavior.
The constructs of the original and modified IMB model
| | | | | |
| [ | True/false | 0.63 | ||
| | | 3 | True/false | 0.66 |
| | | 4 | True/false | 0.61 |
| [ | 5-point semantic | 0.91 | ||
| | | 7 | 5-point semantic | 0.75 |
| | | 7 | 5-point semantic§ | 0.83 |
| | | 7 | 5-point semantic | 0.81 |
| [ | 5-point semantic# | 0.86 | ||
| | | 3 | 5-point semantic# | 0.76 |
| | | 2 | 5-point semantic# | 0.91 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | Different scales | 0.71 | ||
| | [ | 2 | - | - |
| | [ | 6 | 5-point | 0.74 |
| | [ | 2 | - | 0.60 |
| | [ | 10 | 4-point | 0.88 |
Note: ¶ scale from 1 (negative evaluation) to 5 (positive evaluation); §scale from 1 (negative evaluation) to 5 (positive evaluation); †scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely); #scale from 1 (very hard) to 5 (very easy); ‡ the ratio of the number of migratory cities to years of total migration. (−) Not applicable as it is a ratio; Ÿscale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (almost always) during the past 4 weeks; ¥ a composite of the number of standard drinks and frequency of use over the past 4 weeks; ƒscale from 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (most or all of the time) during the past week.
‡because the four indicators were associated with stresses given our qualitative findings [20,35] and statistic parameters (Pearson’s correlation coefficients from the current quantitative data), they were formed to serve as a latent construct of psychosocial stress (α = .71).
All of the above measures have been adapted from the tools by other authors as well as from our qualitative research.
Figure 2Sample frame and size. Notes: (1) District list, (2) Number of venues, (3) Number of respondents, (4) Type of venues 2.
Characteristics of drug use
| Lifetime drug use (N = 450) | | 77(17.11) |
| Average age at first use (N = 77, range = 15-50) | 26.95 ± 9.69 | |
| Lifetime drug injection (77) | | 75(97.40) |
| Average age at first injection (N = 75, range = 16-51) | 29.12 ± 9.79 | |
| Injection use during the past month (n = 77) | | |
| Frequency of injection (range = 0-6)* | 3.4 ± 1.38 | |
| None during the past month | | 2(2.60) |
| Less than monthly | | 6(7.80) |
| Around once per month | | 12(15.6) |
| A few times per month | | 26(33.76) |
| Weekly | | 17(22.08) |
| A couple of times per week | | 5(6.49) |
| Daily | | 9(11.69) |
| Sharing syringes and needles given by other users during the past month (N = 75) | | |
| Frequency of sharing syringes and needs (range = 0-5)* | 3.01 ± 1.31 | |
| Never | | 1(1.33) |
| Rarely, seldom | | 15(20.00) |
| Sometimes | | 9(12.00) |
| About half of the time | | 20(26.67) |
| Almost everytime | | 23(30.67) |
| Always | | 7(9.33) |
| Giving syringes and needles to other users to share during the past month (N = 75) | | |
| Frequency of sharing syringes and needs (range = 0-5)* | 2.83 ± 1.31 | |
| Never | | 1(1.33) |
| Rarely, seldom | | 16(21.33) |
| Sometimes | | 13(17.33) |
| About half of the time | | 16(21.33) |
| Almost everytime | | 24(32.00) |
| Always | | 5(6.67) |
| Purchasing syringes and needles during the past month (N = 75) | | |
| Purchasing syringes and needles (range = 0-4)* | 2.15 ± 1.06 | |
| Never | | 3(4.00) |
| Once | | 19(25.33) |
| Sometimes | | 26(34.67) |
| Often | | 18(24.00) |
| Always | | 9(12.00) |
| Keeping syringes and needles available during the past month (N = 75) | | |
| Frequency of keeping syringes and needles (range = 0-4)* | 2.15 ± 1.17 | |
| Never | | 4(5.33) |
| Rarely | | 22(29.33) |
| Sometimes | | 20(26.67) |
| Often | | 17(22.67) |
| Always | | 12(16.00) |
| Discussing or persuading peers not to share syringes and needles when injecting (N = 75) | | |
| Frequency of discussing or persuading peers not to share (range = 0-4)* | 1.75 ± 1.17 | |
| Never | | 12(16.00) |
| Rarely | | 22(19.33) |
| Sometimes | | 19(25.33) |
| Often | | 17(22.67) |
| Always | 5(6.67) |
*Higher scores indicating higher levels of the practice or higher risk behavior.
Means and standard deviations and correlates among modified IMB model constructs
| 1.Mobility Index | .35 ± .77 (0–10) | - | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2.Alcohol Use | 5.66 ± 4.83 (0–28.50) | .14 | - | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3.Social Isolation | 7.20 ± 3.79 (0–20) | .23* | .25* | - | | | | | | | | | |
| 4.Depression | 6.65 ± 5.16 (0–27) | .17* | .33* | .65*** | - | | | | | | | | |
| 5.Heuristic Information | 2.70 ± 1.04 (0–4) | - .17* | -.12 | .14 | -.10 | - | | | | | | | |
| 6.Transmission Information | 1.5 ± 0.97 (0–3) | -.30* | .18 | .14 | -.02 | .16 | - | | | | | | |
| 7.Attitudes | 26.40 ± 4.58 (10–35) | -.14 | -.40** | .29* | -.20* | .60*** | .31* | - | | | | | |
| 8.Norms | 26.35 ± 5.18 (8–35) | -.18* | -.33* | .29* | -.18* | .56*** | .33* | .87*** | - | | | | |
| 9.Intentions | 25.85 ± 5.44 (7–35) | -.12 | -.36** | .30* | -.32* | .59*** | .38** | .83*** | .87*** | - | | | |
| 10.Preparation | 10.79 ± 2.63 (3–15) | -.21* | -.18 | .30* | -.27* | .65*** | .46** | .81*** | .82*** | .78*** | - | | |
| 11.Practice | 7.07 ± 1.90 (2–10) | -.27* | -.28* | .27* | -.18* | .60*** | .41** | .81*** | .84*** | .81*** | .87*** | - | |
| 12.Drug Use Level | 2.81 ± 1.31 (0–5) | -.08 | -.26* | .29* | -.19* | .54*** | .44** | .73*** | .75*** | .72*** | .75*** | .77*** | - |
*P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.
Skill 1 = Preparation; Skill 2 = Practice.
Figure 3Estimation of the IMB model of risky drug use behavior. Notes: Coefficients are standardized path coefficients. Single-headed arrows represent one-way relationships, double-headed arrows covariates. Variables in eclipses represent latent variables, in squares observed variables. Overall model fit: ML χ2 (16, N = 450) = 15.52, P>.05; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .008. Paths: *P<.05; **P<.01; ***P<.001
Figure 4Estimation of the modified IMB model of risky drug use behavior. Notes: Coefficients are standardized path coefficients. Single-headed arrows represent one-way relationships, double-headed arrows covariates. Variables in eclipses represent latent variables, in squares observed variables. Overall model fit: ML χ2 (46, N = 450) = 101.12, P<.05; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .06. Paths: *P<.05; **P<.01; ***P<0.001.
Comparison of percentage variance across various populations
| Male street laborers | Drug use behavior (Modified IMB) | Our current study | 57 |
| Male street laborers | Sexual behavior (Modified IMB) | [ | 58 |
| Indian truck drivers | Sexual behavior (IMB) | [ | 40-51 |
| Heroin addicts | Sexual behavior (IMB) | [ | 35 |
| Urban minority high school males | Sexual behavior (IMB) | [ | 75 |
| Urban minority high school females | Sexual behavior (IMB) | [ | 46 |
| Low-income African American females | Sexual behavior (IMB) | [ | 36 |
| Low-income white females | Sexual behavior (IMB) | [ | 57 |
| Netherlands adult homosexual males | Sexual behavior (IMB) | [ | 26 |
| Heterosexual university males and females | Sexual behavior (IMB) | [ | 10 |
| Homosexual adult males | Sexual behavior (IMB) | [ | 35 |