David S Festinger1, Karen L Dugosh2, Ann E Kurth3, David S Metzger4. 1. Treatment Research Institute, 600 Public Ledger Building, 150 S. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106, United States. Electronic address: dfestinger@tresearch.org. 2. Treatment Research Institute, 600 Public Ledger Building, 150 S. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106, United States. 3. New York University School of Nursing & College of Global Public Health, 41 East 11th Street, New York, NY 10003, United States. 4. Treatment Research Institute, 600 Public Ledger Building, 150 S. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106, United States; University of Pennsylvania, Department of Psychiatry, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although they have demonstrated efficacy in reducing substance use and criminal recidivism, competing priorities and limited resources may preclude drug court programs from formally addressing HIV risk. This study examined the efficacy of a brief, three-session, computer-facilitated HIV prevention intervention in reducing HIV risk among adult felony drug court participants. METHODS:Two hundred participants were randomly assigned to an HIV intervention (n=101) or attention control (n=99) group. All clients attended judicial status hearings approximately every six weeks. At the first three status hearings following study entry, clients in the intervention group completed the computerized, interactive HIV risk reduction sessions while those in the control group viewed a series of educational life-skill videos of matched length. Outcomes included the rate of independently obtained HIV testing, engagement in high risk HIV-related behaviors, and rate of condom procurement from the research site at each session. RESULTS: Results indicated that participants who received the HIV intervention were significantly more likely to report having obtained HIV testing at some point during the study period than those in the control condition, although the effect was marginally significant when examined in a longitudinal model. In addition, they had higher rates of condom procurement. No group differences were found on rates of high-risk sexual behavior, and the low rate of injection drug reported precluded examination of high-risk drug-related behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides support for the feasibility and utility of delivering HIV prevention services to drug court clients using an efficient computer-facilitated program.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although they have demonstrated efficacy in reducing substance use and criminal recidivism, competing priorities and limited resources may preclude drug court programs from formally addressing HIV risk. This study examined the efficacy of a brief, three-session, computer-facilitated HIV prevention intervention in reducing HIV risk among adult felony drug court participants. METHODS: Two hundred participants were randomly assigned to an HIV intervention (n=101) or attention control (n=99) group. All clients attended judicial status hearings approximately every six weeks. At the first three status hearings following study entry, clients in the intervention group completed the computerized, interactive HIV risk reduction sessions while those in the control group viewed a series of educational life-skill videos of matched length. Outcomes included the rate of independently obtained HIV testing, engagement in high risk HIV-related behaviors, and rate of condom procurement from the research site at each session. RESULTS: Results indicated that participants who received the HIV intervention were significantly more likely to report having obtained HIV testing at some point during the study period than those in the control condition, although the effect was marginally significant when examined in a longitudinal model. In addition, they had higher rates of condom procurement. No group differences were found on rates of high-risk sexual behavior, and the low rate of injection drug reported precluded examination of high-risk drug-related behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides support for the feasibility and utility of delivering HIV prevention services to drug court clients using an efficient computer-facilitated program.
Authors: W Susan Cheng; Richard S Garfein; Shirley J Semple; Steffanie A Strathdee; James K Zians; Thomas L Patterson Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Karen L Dugosh; David S Festinger; Douglas B Marlowe; Nicolle T Clements Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Gregory J Bagby; Ping Zhang; Jeanette E Purcell; Peter J Didier; Steve Nelson Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: M L Kamb; M Fishbein; J M Douglas; F Rhodes; J Rogers; G Bolan; J Zenilman; T Hoxworth; C K Malotte; M Iatesta; C Kent; A Lentz; S Graziano; R H Byers; T A Peterman Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-10-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Keith J Horvath; Sara Lammert; Sara LeGrand; Kathryn E Muessig; José A Bauermeister Journal: Curr Opin HIV AIDS Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.283
Authors: Nina T Harawa; Russell Brewer; Victoria Buckman; Santhoshini Ramani; Aditya Khanna; Kayo Fujimoto; John A Schneider Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Julia V Bailey; Sonali Wayal; Catherine R H Aicken; Rosie Webster; Catherine H Mercer; Irwin Nazareth; Greta Rait; Richard Peacock; Elizabeth Murray Journal: AIDS Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 4.177