Jennifer C Elliott1,2, Erin Delker1,3, Melanie M Wall1,2,4, Tianshu Feng1, Efrat Aharonovich1,2, Melissa Tracy5, Sandro Galea6, Jennifer Ahern7, Aaron L Sarvet1, Deborah S Hasin8,9,10. 1. New York State Psychiatric Institute , New York City, New York. 2. Department of Psychiatry , Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, New York. 3. San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Public Health (Epidemiology) , San Diego, California. 4. Department of Biostatistics , Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, New York. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics , School of Public Health, University at Albany, State University of New York, Rensselaer, New York. 6. School of Public Health , Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Division of Epidemiology , School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California. 8. New York State Psychiatric Institute , New York City, New York. dsh2@cumc.columbia.edu, deborah.hasin@gmail.com. 9. Department of Psychiatry , Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, New York. dsh2@cumc.columbia.edu, deborah.hasin@gmail.com. 10. Department of Epidemiology , Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, New York. dsh2@cumc.columbia.edu, deborah.hasin@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Heavy alcohol consumption can be harmful, particularly for individuals with HIV. There is substantial variability in response to interventions that aim to reduce drinking. Neighborhood drinking norms may explain some of this variability among HIV-infected patients. Therefore, we investigated whether neighborhood-level drinking norms modified response to alcohol intervention among HIV-infected heavy drinkers. METHODS:Heavily-drinking HIV comprehensive care patients (n = 230) completed 1 of 3 brief alcohol interventions (an educational intervention, a motivational interviewing [MI] intervention, or an MI intervention with a technological enhancement called HealthCall). Drinking was reported at baseline and end of treatment (60 days). Neighborhood-level drinking norms were obtained from a separate general population study. RESULTS: Patients' reductions in drinks per drinking day in response to MI (as compared with the educational control) were more pronounced in neighborhoods with more permissive drinking norms. In contrast, patients' reductions in drinks per drinking day in response to MI plus HealthCall did not significantly vary between neighborhoods with different drinking norms. Norms did not evidence significant interactions with intervention condition for 3 other exploratory drinking outcomes (drinking frequency, binge frequency, and maximum quantity). CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood-level drinking norms help explain differential response to an alcohol MI intervention among HIV-infected patients. This study suggests the utility of considering neighborhood context as an effect modifier of alcohol interventions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Heavy alcohol consumption can be harmful, particularly for individuals with HIV. There is substantial variability in response to interventions that aim to reduce drinking. Neighborhood drinking norms may explain some of this variability among HIV-infectedpatients. Therefore, we investigated whether neighborhood-level drinking norms modified response to alcohol intervention among HIV-infected heavy drinkers. METHODS: Heavily-drinking HIV comprehensive care patients (n = 230) completed 1 of 3 brief alcohol interventions (an educational intervention, a motivational interviewing [MI] intervention, or an MI intervention with a technological enhancement called HealthCall). Drinking was reported at baseline and end of treatment (60 days). Neighborhood-level drinking norms were obtained from a separate general population study. RESULTS:Patients' reductions in drinks per drinking day in response to MI (as compared with the educational control) were more pronounced in neighborhoods with more permissive drinking norms. In contrast, patients' reductions in drinks per drinking day in response to MI plus HealthCall did not significantly vary between neighborhoods with different drinking norms. Norms did not evidence significant interactions with intervention condition for 3 other exploratory drinking outcomes (drinking frequency, binge frequency, and maximum quantity). CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood-level drinking norms help explain differential response to an alcohol MI intervention among HIV-infectedpatients. This study suggests the utility of considering neighborhood context as an effect modifier of alcohol interventions.
Authors: Katherine M Keyes; John E Schulenberg; Patrick M O'Malley; Lloyd D Johnston; Jerald G Bachman; Guohua Li; Deborah Hasin Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2012-12
Authors: Bridget F Grant; Deborah A Dawson; Frederick S Stinson; Patricia S Chou; Ward Kay; Roger Pickering Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2003-07-20 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Abhijit Nadkarni; Urvita Bhatia; Andre Bedendo; Tassiane Cristine Santos de Paula; Joanna Gonçalves de Andrade Tostes; Lidia Segura-Garcia; Marcela Tiburcio; Sven Andréasson Journal: Int J Ment Health Syst Date: 2022-08-08