A Modified Alcohol SBI for Use among Older Adults Living with HIV.
Annie L Nguyen, Jordan E Lake, Diane Preciado and 3 others
PMID 32238110WHAT IT FOUND
Older men living with HIV found an adapted alcohol risk tool and report easy to understand, but some felt judged or already knew the risks.
It flagged more risk items without classifying more people as at-risk.
Key findings
01The adapted tool classified the same number of participants as at-risk as the original tool, but flagged more individual risk items.
02Participants reported the materials were easy to read and understand, and no one reported difficulty completing or understanding them.
03Some participants reacted negatively to the personalized risk report, feeling embarrassed, guilty, or judged, while others said long-term HIV survivors may already know the risks.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 27 participants were enrolled, all male English speakers recruited from Los Angeles, so it does not show how women, transgender people, or Spanish speakers would use it. Participants were intentionally selected for high alcohol use, so the tool was not tested among people with moderate or low drinking. The study was done in a research setting with $20 compensation, which may not reflect routine clinic use. The adapted tool did not classify more participants as at-risk than the original CARET in this sample. The paper reports usability and acceptability, not whether the intervention reduced drinking or improved HIV outcomes.
Declared interests
The supplied article metadata indicates NIH extramural research support, but no author conflict-of-interest statement is provided in the text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the adapted alcohol screening and brief intervention reduces drinking or improves HIV care. This was a small usability pilot, and the adapted tool did not classify more participants as at-risk than the original tool.