Premium
Neighborhood‐Level Drinking Norms and Alcohol Intervention Outcomes in HIV Patients Who Are Heavy Drinkers
Author(s) -
Elliott Jennifer C.,
Delker Erin,
Wall Melanie M.,
Feng Tianshu,
Aharonovich Efrat,
Tracy Melissa,
Galea Sandro,
Ahern Jennifer,
Sarvet Aaron L.,
Hasin Deborah S.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
alcoholism: clinical and experimental research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.267
H-Index - 153
eISSN - 1530-0277
pISSN - 0145-6008
DOI - 10.1111/acer.13198
Subject(s) - binge drinking , heavy drinking , psychological intervention , context (archaeology) , intervention (counseling) , motivational interviewing , medicine , environmental health , population , alcohol , brief intervention , poison control , injury prevention , psychology , demography , psychiatry , paleontology , biochemistry , chemistry , biology , sociology
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.