Efrat Aharonovich1, Malka Stohl2, James Ellis2, Paul Amrhein3, Deborah Hasin4. 1. New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, United States; Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, United States. Electronic address: ea2017@columbia.edu. 2. New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, United States. 3. New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, United States; Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, United States. 4. New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, United States; Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of three factors in drinking outcome after brief intervention among heavily drinkingHIV patients were investigated: strength of commitment to change drinking, alcohol dependence, and treatment type: brief Motivational Interview (MI) only, or MI plus HealthCall, a technological extension of brief intervention. METHODS:HIV primary care patients (N=139) who drank ≥4 drinks at least once in the 30 days before study entry participated inMI-only or MI+HealthCall in a randomized trial to reduce drinking. Patients were 95.0% minority; 23.0% female; 46.8% alcohol dependent; mean age 46.3. Outcome at end of treatment (60 days) was drinks per drinking day (Timeline Follow-Back). Commitment strength (CS) was rated from MI session recordings. RESULTS: Overall, stronger CS predicted end-of-treatment drinking (p<.001). After finding an interaction of treatment, CS and alcohol dependence (p=.01), we examined treatment×CS interactions in alcohol dependent and non-dependent patients. In alcohol dependent patients, the treatment×commitment strength interaction was significant (p=.006); patients with low commitment strength had better outcomes in MI+HealthCall than in MI-only (lower mean drinks per drinking day; 3.5 and 4.6 drinks, respectively). In non-dependent patients, neither treatment nor CS predicted outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Among alcohol dependent HIV patients, HealthCall was most beneficial in drinking reduction when MI ended with low commitment strength. HealthCall may not merely extend MI effects, but add effects of its own that compensate for low commitment strength. Thus, HealthCall may also be effective when paired with briefer interventions requiring less skill, training and supervision than MI. Replication is warranted.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The role of three factors in drinking outcome after brief intervention among heavily drinking HIVpatients were investigated: strength of commitment to change drinking, alcohol dependence, and treatment type: brief Motivational Interview (MI) only, or MI plus HealthCall, a technological extension of brief intervention. METHODS:HIV primary care patients (N=139) who drank ≥4 drinks at least once in the 30 days before study entry participated in MI-only or MI+HealthCall in a randomized trial to reduce drinking. Patients were 95.0% minority; 23.0% female; 46.8% alcohol dependent; mean age 46.3. Outcome at end of treatment (60 days) was drinks per drinking day (Timeline Follow-Back). Commitment strength (CS) was rated from MI session recordings. RESULTS: Overall, stronger CS predicted end-of-treatment drinking (p<.001). After finding an interaction of treatment, CS and alcohol dependence (p=.01), we examined treatment×CS interactions in alcohol dependent and non-dependent patients. In alcohol dependent patients, the treatment×commitment strength interaction was significant (p=.006); patients with low commitment strength had better outcomes in MI+HealthCall than in MI-only (lower mean drinks per drinking day; 3.5 and 4.6 drinks, respectively). In non-dependent patients, neither treatment nor CS predicted outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Among alcohol dependent HIVpatients, HealthCall was most beneficial in drinking reduction when MI ended with low commitment strength. HealthCall may not merely extend MI effects, but add effects of its own that compensate for low commitment strength. Thus, HealthCall may also be effective when paired with briefer interventions requiring less skill, training and supervision than MI. Replication is warranted.
Authors: William R Miller; Catherine Baca; Wilson M Compton; Denise Ernst; Jennifer K Manuel; Beverly Pringle; Carol R Schermer; Roger D Weiss; Mark L Willenbring; Allen Zweben Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: E Aharonovich; M L Hatzenbuehler; B Johnston; A O'Leary; J Morgenstern; M L Wainberg; P Yao; J E Helzer; D S Hasin Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2006-08
Authors: Rainer Weber; Caroline A Sabin; Nina Friis-Møller; Peter Reiss; Wafaa M El-Sadr; Ole Kirk; Francois Dabis; Matthew G Law; Christian Pradier; Stephane De Wit; Börje Akerlund; Gonzalo Calvo; Antonella d'Arminio Monforte; Martin Rickenbach; Bruno Ledergerber; Andrew N Phillips; Jens D Lundgren Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006 Aug 14-28
Authors: Evelyn P Whitlock; Michael R Polen; Carla A Green; Tracy Orleans; Jonathan Klein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-04-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kenneth M Carpenter; Paul C Amrhein; Krysten W Bold; Kaitlyn Mishlen; Frances R Levin; Wilfrid N Raby; Suzette M Evans; Richard W Foltin; Edward V Nunes Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Derek D Satre; Amy S Leibowitz; Wendy Leyden; Sheryl L Catz; C Bradley Hare; Hannah Jang; Jennifer O Lam; Kendall J Bryant; Constance M Weisner; Stacy A Sterling; Michael Horberg; Paul Volberding; Michael J Silverberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 5.128