Dataset Information

A randomized clinical trial of mobile phone motivational interviewing for alcohol use problems in Kenya.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To test the effectiveness of a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention using the mobile phone among adults with alcohol use problems.

Design

A randomized clinical trial of mobile MI and standard in-person MI with 1- and 6-month follow-up, including a 1-month waitlist control followed by mobile MI.

Setting

A primary health center in rural Kenya.

Participants

Three hundred adults screening positive for alcohol use problems were randomized and received immediate mobile MI (n = 89), in-person MI (n = 65) or delayed mobile MI (n = 76) for waiting-list controls 1 month after no treatment, with 70 unable to be reached for intervention.

Intervention and comparator

One MI session was provided either immediately by mobile phone, in-person at the health center or delayed by 1 month and then provided by mobile phone.

Measurements

Alcohol use problems were repeatedly assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) and the shorter AUDIT-C. The primary outcome was difference in alcohol score 1 month after no intervention for waiting-list control versus 1 month after MI for mobile MI. The secondary outcomes were difference in alcohol score for in-person MI versus mobile MI one and 6 months after MI.

Findings

For our primary outcome, average AUDIT-C scores were nearly three points higher (difference = 2.88, 95% confidence interval = 2.11, 3.66) for waiting-list controls after 1 month of no intervention versus mobile MI 1 month after intervention. Results for secondary outcomes supported the null hypothesis of no difference between in-person and mobile MI at 1 month (Bayes factor = 0.22), but were inconclusive at 6 months (Bayes factor = 0.41).

Conclusion

Mobile phone-based motivational interviewing may be an effective treatment for alcohol use problems among adults visiting primary care in Kenya. Providing mobile motivational interviewing may help clinicians in rural areas to reach patients needing treatment for alcohol use problems.

SUBMITTER: Harder VS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8353663 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a sequential approach of parent-targeted HPV vaccine reminders and phone-based Motivation Interviewing (MI).MethodsIn 2016, we selected all 11- to 12-year-old boys and girls seen in one clinic whose vaccine records did not include the HPV vaccine (n=286). By gender, we individually randomized parents of adolescents to an interactive text message (74 girls and 45 boys), postcard reminder (46 boys and no girls because of previously demonstrated efficacy), or standard care group (75 girls and 46 boys). Reminders were sent with medical director permission and a HIPAA waiver. Two months after reminders, among the adolescents whose vaccine records still did not include the HPV vaccine, we selected a gender-stratified random sample of 20 parents for phone-based MI. We assessed the percentage of deliverable messages, the percentage of parents' responding to the interactive text message, parent acceptability of receiving a text message, and MI parent responsiveness and interviewer competence (MI Treatment Integrity Coding system).ResultsNearly all messages were deliverable (98% of postcards and 74% of text messages). Six of the 88 parents (7%) receiving text messages scheduled an appointment through our interactive system. The acceptability survey response rate was 37% (38/102). Respondents were favorable toward vaccine reminders for all parents (82%). Among 20 sampled parents, 17 were reached by phone of whom 7 completed MI, 4 had or were getting the HPV vaccine for their child, and 5 expressed disinterest. Across the 7 MI calls, the interviewer was rated 100% MI adherent and scored an average 4.19 rating for Global Spirit.ConclusionWithout providing explicit consent to receive vaccine-related messages, parents nonetheless found postcards and interactive text messages acceptable. Centralizing MI to phone calls with trained staff was acceptable to parents and resulted in highly MI-adherent interviews.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cue exposure therapy (CET) is a psychological approach developed to prepare individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) for confronting alcohol and associated stimuli in real life. CET has shown promise when treating AUD in group sessions, but it is unknown whether progressing from group sessions to using a mobile phone app is an effective delivery pathway. OBJECTIVE:The objectives of this study were to investigate (1) whether CET as aftercare would increase the effectiveness of primary treatment with cognitive behavior therapy, and (2) whether CET delivered through a mobile phone app would be similarly effective to CET via group sessions. METHODS:A total of 164 individuals with AUD were randomized to one of three groups: CET as group aftercare (CET group), CET as fully automated mobile phone app aftercare (CET app), or aftercare as usual. Study outcomes were assessed face-to-face at preaftercare, postaftercare, and again at 6 months after aftercare treatment. Generalized mixed models were used to compare the trajectories of the groups over time on drinking, cravings, and use of urge-specific coping skills (USCS). RESULTS:In all, 153 of 164 individuals (93%) completed assessments both at posttreatment and 6-month follow-up assessments. No differences in the trajectories of predicted means were found between the experimental groups (CET group and app) compared with aftercare as usual on drinking and craving outcomes over time. Both CET group (predicted mean difference 5.99, SE 2.59, z=2.31, P=.02) and the CET app (predicted mean difference 4.90, SE 2.26, z=2.31, P=.02) showed increased use of USCS compared to aftercare as usual at posttreatment, but this effect was reduced at the 6-month follow-up. No differences were detected between the two experimental CET groups on any outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:CET with USCS delivered as aftercare either via group sessions or a mobile phone app did not increase the effectiveness of primary treatment. This suggests that CET with USCS may not be an effective psychological approach for the aftercare of individuals treated for AUD. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02298751; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02298751.

Project description:BACKGROUND:At-risk patterns of alcohol use are prevalent in many countries with significant costs to individuals, families, and society. Screening and brief interventions, including with Web delivery, are effective but with limited translation into practice to date. Previous observational studies of the Hello Sunday Morning approach have found that their unique Web-based participatory health communication method has resulted in a reduction of at-risk alcohol use between baseline and 3 months. The Hello Sunday Morning blog program asks participants to publicly set a personal goal to stop drinking or reduce their consumption for a set period of time, and to record their reflections and progress on blogs and social networks. Daybreak is Hello Sunday Morning's evidence-based behavior change program, which is designed to support people looking to change their relationship with alcohol. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to systematically evaluate different versions of Hello Sunday Morning's Daybreak program (with and without coaching support) in reducing at-risk alcohol use. METHODS:We will use a between groups randomized control design. New participants enrolling in the Daybreak program will be eligible to be randomized to receive either (1) the Daybreak program, including peer support plus behavioral experiments (these encourage and guide participants in developing new skills in the areas of mindfulness, connectedness, resilience, situational strategies, and health), or (2) the Daybreak program, including the same peer support plus behavioral experiments, but with online coaching support. We will recruit 467 people per group to detect an effect size of f=0.10. To be eligible, participants must be resident in Australia, aged ?18 years, score ?8 on the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT), and not report prior treatment for cardiovascular disease. RESULTS:The primary outcome measure will be reduction in the AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) scores. Secondary outcomes include mental health (Kessler's K-10), days out of role (Kessler), alcohol consumed (measured with a 7-day drinking diary in standard 10 g drinks), and alcohol-related harms (CORE alcohol and drug survey). We will collect data at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months and analyze them with random effects models, given the correlated data structure. CONCLUSIONS:A randomized trial is required to provide robust evidence of the impact of the online coaching component of the Daybreak program, including over an extended period. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000010291; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373110 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zKRmp0aC). REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER:RR1-10.2196/9982.

Project description:BackgroundReal-time ecological momentary interventions have shown promising effects in domains other than alcohol use; however, only few studies regarding ecological momentary interventions for alcohol use have been conducted thus far. The increasing popularity of smartphones offers new avenues for intervention and innovation in data collection.ObjectiveWe aimed to test the efficacy of an ecological momentary intervention, comprising mobile Web-based ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) and text messaging (short message service, SMS) brief interventions, delivered during drinking events using participants' mobile phones.MethodsWe conducted a three-armed randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of a mobile Web-based ecological momentary assessment with texting feedback on self-reported alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms in young adults. Participants were enrolled from an existing observational cohort study of young adults screened for risky drinking behavior. The intervention group (ecological momentary intervention group) completed repeated ecological momentary assessments during 6 drinking events and received immediate texting-based feedback in response to each ecological momentary assessment. The second group (ecological momentary assessment group) completed ecological momentary assessments without the brief intervention, and the third did not receive any contact during the trial period. Recent peak risky single-occasion drinking was assessed at the baseline and follow-up using telephone interviews. We used a random effects mixed modeling approach using maximum likelihood estimation to provide estimates of differences in mean drinking levels between groups between baseline and 12-week follow-up.ResultsA total of 269 participants were randomized into the 3 groups. The ecological momentary intervention group exhibited a small and nonsignificant increase between baseline and follow-up in (geometric) the mean number of standard drinks consumed at the most recent heavy drinking occasion (mean 12.5 vs 12.7). Both ecological momentary assessment and control groups exhibited a nonsignificant decrease (ecological momentary assessment: mean 13.8 vs 11.8; control: mean 12.3 vs 11.6); these changes did not differ significantly between groups (Wald ?22 1.6; P=.437) and the magnitude of the effects of the intervention were markedly small. No other significant differences between groups on measures of alcohol consumption or related harms were observed. The intervention acceptability was high despite the technical problems in delivery.ConclusionsWith a small number of participants, this study showed few effects of an SMS-based brief intervention on peak risky single-occasion drinking. Nevertheless, the study highlights areas for further investigation into the effects of EMI on young adults with heavy alcohol consumption.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001323415; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369534 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/7074mqwcs).