| Literature DB >> 35559854 |
Sarah C Boyle1, Joseph W LaBrie1, Bradley M Trager1, Lauren D Costine2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual minority women disproportionately engage in heavy drinking and shoulder the burden of alcohol dependence. Although several intensive interventions are being developed to meet the needs of treatment-seeking sexual minority women, there remains a lack of preventive interventions to reduce drinking and its consequences among women not yet motivated to reduce their alcohol consumption.Entities:
Keywords: alcohol; gamification; intervention; mobile phone; sexual minority women; smartphone; social norms
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35559854 PMCID: PMC9143770 DOI: 10.2196/34853
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 7.076
Figure 1The initial version of LezParlay tested in this trial was a device-responsive HTML5 web application that delivered personalized normative feedback on a number of lesbian, bisexual, and queer stereotypes and health-related topics within the context of a monthly competition.
Figure 2Geodensity of LezParlay users across US metropolitan areas.
Characteristics of LezParlay users (N=2667).
| Characteristic | Participants, n (%) | |
|
| ||
|
| Lesbian | 1446 (54.22) |
|
| Bisexual | 669 (25.08) |
|
| Queer | 562 (21.07) |
|
| ||
|
| <18 | 107 (4.01) |
|
| 18-24 | 401 (15.04) |
|
| 25-34 | 1284 (48.14) |
|
| 35-44 | 562 (21.07) |
|
| 54-65 | 240 (9) |
|
| ≥66 | 80 (3) |
|
| ||
|
| Single | 1205 (45.18) |
|
| In a relationship | 857 (32.13) |
|
| Married | 455 (17.06) |
|
| It’s complicated | 161 (6.04) |
|
| ||
|
| Mobile phone | 2266 (84.96) |
|
| Tablet | 54 (2.02) |
|
| Computer | 347 (13.01) |
Figure 3Flow of the evaluation showing study participants through screening, enrollment, and follow-ups. PNF: personalized normative feedback. T1: time point 1; T2: time point 2; T3: time point 3.
Competition-derived actual norms presented in treatment personalized normative feedback.
| Norms | Age groups (years) | ||||||
|
| 21-29 | 30-39 | ≥40 | ||||
|
| n=627 | n=498 | n=212 | ||||
|
| Drinking days per week, mean | 2 | 2 | 1.5 | |||
|
| Drinks per occasion, mean | 2.5 | 2 | 2 | |||
|
| Weekly drinks, mean | 5 | 4 | 3 | |||
|
| Peak drinks on one occasion, mean | 4 | 3 | 3 | |||
|
| Negative consequences, mean | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | |||
|
| n=503 | n=414 | n=186 | ||||
|
| Times drank alcohol to cope, % | 18 | 17 | 16 | |||
|
| Time used drugs to cope, % | 12 | 9 | 9 | |||
|
| Times exercised or meditated to cope, % | 55 | 61 | 49 | |||
|
| Times sought social support to cope, % | 53 | 50 | 62 | |||
aAs no sexual identity differences were observed for alcohol use or coping behaviors, participants received the same age group–specific lesbian, bisexual, and queer actual norms for these topics as a function of condition assignment.
Baseline demographics, psychosocial characteristics, drinking norms, and alcohol use of evaluation study participants overall and by condition assignment.
| Characteristics | Overall (N=499) | Control PNFa (n=177) | Alcohol PNF (n=179) | Alcohol + coping PNF (n=143) | |||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Lesbian | 290 (58.1) | 94 (53.1) | 108 (60.3) | 89 (62.2) | ||||
|
| Bisexual | 115 (23) | 48 (27.1) | 39 (21.8) | 29 (20.2) | ||||
|
| Queer | 94 (18.8) | 35 (19.8) | 32 (17.9) | 25 (17.5) | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Single | 209 (41.9) | 80 (45.2) | 69 (38.5) | 60 (41.9) | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Hispanic/Latino | 123 (24.6) | 40 (22.6) | 46 (25.7) | 37 (25.8) | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| American Indian/Alaskan Native | 13 (2.6) | 4 (2.3) | 5 (2.8) | 4 (2.7) | ||||
|
| Asian American | 39 (7.8) | 17 (9.6) | 16 (8.9) | 6 (4.1) | ||||
|
| Black/African American | 70 (14) | 26 (14.7) | 25 (14) | 19 (13.2) | ||||
|
| Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 1 (0.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.6) | ||||
|
| White | 268 (53.7) | 99 (55.9) | 91 (50.8) | 78 (54.5) | ||||
|
| Multiracial | 53 (10.6) | 15 (8.5) | 23 (12.8) | 15 (10.4) | ||||
|
| Other | 55 (11) | 16 (9) | 19 (10.6) | 14 (20) | ||||
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 29.87 (7.32) | 29.47 (7.03) | 30.37 (7.75) | 29.73 (7.15) | |||||
| T1b interpersonal stigma, mean (SD) | 0.61 (0.69) | 0.66 (0.69) | 0.56 (0.66) | 0.62 (0.70) | |||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Norm–weekly drinks | 13.94 (9.37) | 13.84 (9.44) | 14.07 (10.35) | 13.89 (7.92) | ||||
|
| Norm–peak drinks | 6.31 (2.18) | 6.16 (2.27) | 6.36 (2.07) | 6.43 (2.20) | ||||
|
| Norm–consequences | 2.88 (1.74) | 2.84 (1.65) | 3.01 (1.84) | 2.73 (1.72) | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Weekly drinks | 9.15 (7.51) | 9.13 (7.90) | 8.96 (8.19) | 9.43 (6.00) | ||||
|
| Peak drinks | 5.79 (2.34) | 5.74 (2.43) | 5.76 (2.37) | 5.87 (2.19) | ||||
|
| Consequences | 2.52 (1.89) | 2.45 (1.95) | 2.55 (1.86) | 2.58 (1.89) | ||||
aPNF: personalized normative feedback.
bT1: time point 1.
Multilevel model results for outcomes (weekly drinks, peak drinks, and negative alcohol-related consequences).
| Outcomes | Weekly drinks | Peak drinks | Consequences | |||||
|
| b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | |||||
| Alcohol PNFa | 0.41 (0.74) | .58 | 0.13 (0.22) | .54 | 0.2 (0.16) | .24 | ||
| Alcohol + coping PNF (reference: control PNF) | 0.14 (0.78) | .86 | 0.16 (0.23) | .49 | 0.13 (0.17) | .47 | ||
| Time 2 | 0.65 (0.39) | .09 | 0.19 (0.14) | .19 | 0.71 (0.12) | <.001 | ||
| Time 3 (reference: time 1) | −0.50 (0.40) | .22 | −0.05 (0.15) | .73 | 0.64 (0.13) | <.001 | ||
| Alcohol PNF × time 2 | −2.72 (0.54) | <.001 | −1.61 (0.20) | <.001 | −1.03 (0.18) | <.001 | ||
| Alcohol PNF × time 3 | −1.64 (0.57) | .004 | −0.59 (0.21) | .005 | −0.90 (0.18) | <.001 | ||
| Alcohol + coping PNF × time 2 | −3.39 (0.58) | <.001 | −1.67 (0.22) | <.001 | −1.00 (0.19) | <.001 | ||
| Alcohol + coping PNF × time 3 | −2.03 (0.61) | .01 | −0.71 (0.23) | .02 | −0.98 (0.20) | <.001 | ||
| Queer | −1.88 (0.78) | .02 | −0.29 (0.22) | .19 | −0.48 (0.16) | .01 | ||
| Bisexual (reference: lesbian) | −1.26 (0.72) | .08 | 0.40 (0.20) | .05 | −0.03 (0.15) | .83 | ||
| Non-White (reference: White) | 0.75 (0.65) | .25 | 0.23 (0.18) | .21 | 0.51 (0.13) | .001 | ||
| Hispanic or Latinx (reference: non-Hispanic or Latinx) | −0.68 (0.77) | .38 | 0.02 (0.22) | .93 | −0.28 (0.15) | .07 | ||
| Age | −0.05 (0.04) | .20 | −0.04 (0.01) | .001 | −0.04 (0.01) | <.001 | ||
| Single (reference: coupled or married) | 2.30 (0.62) | .002 | 0.61 (0.18) | .01 | 0.41 (0.13) | <.001 | ||
| Interpersonal stigma exposure | 1.85 (0.43) | <.001 | 0.38 (0.12) | .002 | 0.45 (0.09) | <.001 | ||
aPNF: personalized normative feedback.
Tukey post hoc test results probing PNFa condition × time interactions.
| PNF condition comparisons | Weekly drinks | Peak drinks | Consequences | ||||||
|
| b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | ||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Alcohol vs control | −0.41 (0.74) | .58 | −0.13 (0.22) | .54 | −0.20 (0.16) | .24 | ||
|
| Alcohol + coping vs control | −0.14 (0.78) | .86 | −0.16 (0.23) | .49 | −0.13 (0.17) | .47 | ||
|
| Alcohol vs alcohol + coping | 0.27 (0.78) | .73 | −0.03 (0.23) | .91 | 0.07 (0.17) | .69 | ||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Alcohol vs controld | 2.31 (0.77) | .003 | 1.48 (0.23) | <.001 | 0.83 (0.18) | <.001 | ||
|
| Alcohol + coping vs controld | 3.25 (0.82) | <.001 | 1.51 (0.25) | <.001 | 0.86 (0.19) | <.001 | ||
|
| Alcohol vs alcohol + coping | 0.94 (0.82) | .25 | 0.04 (0.25) | .88 | 0.03 (0.19) | .87 | ||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Alcohol vs controld | 1.24 (0.79) | .12 | 0.46 (0.24) | .06 | 0.70 (0.19) | .002 | ||
|
| Alcohol + coping vs controld | 1.90 (0.84) | .03 | 0.55 (0.26) | .03 | 0.86 (0.20) | <.001 | ||
|
| Alcohol vs alcohol + coping | 0.66 (0.84) | .43 | 0.10 (0.26) | .71 | 0.15 (0.20) | .44 | ||
aPNF: personalized normative feedback.
bT1: time point 1.
cT2: time point 2.
dAcross outcomes, Cohen d effect size estimates for significant treatment versus control comparisons ranged from 0.20 to 0.33 at T2 and 0.12 to 0.22 at T3.
eT3: time point 3.
Figure 4Personalized normative feedback (PNF) condition as a function of time for each outcome.
LezParlay competition acceptability ratings by item (N=356).
| Acceptability item | Rating, mean (SD)a |
| The “stereotype challenge” concept | 4.37 (0.56) |
| The topics and questions | 4.01 (0.56) |
| Receiving the detailed results each round | 4.51 (0.56) |
| Browsing players profiles | 3.62 (0.66) |
| Submitting and voting on questions | 3.95 (0.59) |
| Betting points on your guesses being correct | 4.34 (0.62) |
| Receiving SMS text message reminders | 4.12 (0.58) |
| Receiving email reminders | 4.27 (0.50) |
| Viewing the top scorer leaderboards | 3.89 (0.60) |
| Competing for money and receiving gift cards | 4.09 (0.55) |
aResponse options ranged from 1=disliked very much to 5=liked very much.
Categories of psychological benefits described by participants and representative responses (n=283).
| Benefit category | Total, n (%) | Representative responses and user characteristics |
| Knowledge and social comparison | 184 (65) |
“I work at an LGBTQ community center and it really helped having data to influence our programs and identify topics/issues to discuss in our women's group meetings.” [Queer, 41 years] “Let me learn more about the lgbtq community and see that I drink way more than average lol fail” [Lesbian, 38 years] |
| Community connection and identity strength | 96 (33.9) |
“Being in my 50s and feeling sort of invisible these days this competition really helped me feel connected to something again” [Lesbian, 52 years] “It was so great for me although it's hard to describe how/why exactly...felt connected and in the know...also felt more confident and secure in my identity.” [Queer, 25 years] |
| Stigma reduction | 88 (31) |
“This really helped me reduce biases that I had internalized without even realizing it!” [Queer, 26 years] “Cool to see that some of the negative ways we get portrayed in the media are totally off.” [Lesbian, 36 years] |
| Introspection and self-confrontation | 66 (23.3) |
“This really helped me see that I need to get my shit together in several areas” [Lesbian, 33 years] “Made me question some of my own tendencies and behaviors. Came to see that I was doing what I thought everyone else was doing which wasn't even the truth...” [Lesbian, 28 years] |
| Funa and entertainment | 54 (19) |
“Loved the competition, betting, prizes, and leaderboards... so so fun” [Lesbian, 51 years] “It was so fun and I was able to get my lesbian roommate to play with me...we got super competitive about scores and had a blast!” [Bisexual, 37 years] |
| Mood and outlook enhancement | 40 (14.1) |
“...helped my mental health and gave me a more positive outlook on all things queer.” [Queer, 29 years] “It was a source of enjoyment. Getting the results always put me in such a good mood...even when I was wrong about stuff...” [Lesbian, 23 years] |