Aharonovich Efrat, Stohl Malka, Ellis James, Amrhein Paul, Hasin Deborah
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.
New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, United States.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014 Feb 1;135:112-8. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.11.015. Epub 2013 Nov 27.
The role of three factors in drinking outcome after brief intervention among heavily drinking HIV 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.
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.
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.
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.
研究了三个因素在重度饮酒的HIV患者接受简短干预后的饮酒结果中的作用:改变饮酒行为的承诺强度、酒精依赖以及治疗类型:仅进行简短动机性访谈(MI),或MI加HealthCall(简短干预的技术扩展)。
在一项减少饮酒的随机试验中,研究入组前30天内至少有一次饮酒量≥4杯的HIV初级护理患者(N = 139)参与了仅MI或MI + HealthCall干预。患者中95.0%为少数族裔;23.0%为女性;46.8%有酒精依赖;平均年龄46.3岁。治疗结束时(60天)的结果是每日饮酒量(时间线追溯法)。通过MI会话记录对承诺强度(CS)进行评分。
总体而言,更强的CS预测了治疗结束时的饮酒情况(p <.001)。在发现治疗、CS和酒精依赖之间存在交互作用(p =.01)后,我们检查了酒精依赖和非依赖患者中的治疗×CS交互作用。在酒精依赖患者中,治疗×承诺强度交互作用显著(p =.006);承诺强度低的患者在MI + HealthCall中的结果优于仅接受MI的患者(平均每日饮酒量更低;分别为3.5杯和4.6杯)。在非依赖患者中,治疗和CS均不能预测结果。
在酒精依赖的HIV患者中,当MI结束时承诺强度较低时,HealthCall在减少饮酒方面最有益。HealthCall可能不仅能扩展MI的效果,还能增加其自身的效果,以弥补承诺强度低的问题。因此,当与比MI需要更少技能、培训和监督的更简短干预措施配对时,HealthCall也可能有效。有必要进行重复研究。