Do Risky Friends Change the Efficacy of a Primary Care Brief Intervention for Adolescent Alcohol Use?
Do Risky Friends Change the Efficacy of a Primary Care Brief Intervention for Adolescent Alcohol Use?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.09.012
复制
发表时间：
2014-04-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Harris, Sion K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Louis-Jacques, Jennifer;Knight, John R.;Harris, Sion K.
目的：确定同伴风险（有喝酒或同意喝酒的朋友）是否会改变计算机辅助筛查和提供者简短建议 (cSBA) 干预对青少年饮酒的影响。方法：我们使用逻辑回归模型和广义估计方程对 2,092 名青少年样本进行了评估干预效果。通过测试交互项（同侪风险的治疗条件），分别对开始饮酒（基线不饮酒者随访时饮酒）和戒酒（基线饮酒者随访时不饮酒）的同侪风险效应修正进行分析。通过随后按同伴风险进行分层，进一步阐明了交互效应的解释。结果：在 3 个月的随访中，有同伴风险的人（调整后的相对风险比；风险 1.44、1.18-1.76 对比无风险 0.98、0.41-2.36）对戒酒的干预效果显着更大。对于开始饮酒没有这样的发现。结论：酒精筛查和简短的提供者咨询可能对有饮酒朋友的青少年饮酒者有不同的好处。 (C) 2014 年青少年健康与医学协会。版权所有。
Purpose: To determine if peer risk (having friends who drink or approve of drinking) modifies the effects of a computer-facilitated screening and provider brief advice (cSBA) intervention on adolescent alcohol use.Methods: We assessed the intervention effect using logistic regression modeling with generalized estimating equations on a sample of 2,092 adolescents. Effect modification by peer risk was analyzed separately for alcohol initiation (drinking at follow-up in baseline nondrinkers) and cessation (no drinking at follow-up in baseline drinkers) by testing an interaction term (treatment condition by peer risk). Interpretation of the interaction effect was further clarified by subsequent stratification by peer risk.Results: The intervention effect on alcohol cessation was significantly greater among those with peer risk (adjusted relative risk ratios; risk 1.44, 1.18-1.76 vs. no risk .98, .41-2.36) at 3 months' follow-up. There was no such finding for alcohol initiation.Conclusions: Alcohol screening and brief provider counseling may differentially benefit adolescent drinkers with drinking friends. (C) 2014 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.