Perceived benefits and negative consequences of alcohol consumption in women living with HIV: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Women living with HIV have increased prevalence of medical and psychological comorbidities that could be adversely affected by alcohol consumption. Little is known about their unique motivations for drinking or perceptions of HIV-related consequences. In preparation for an alcohol intervention study, we sought to better understand reasons for drinking and perceived consequences of alcohol consumption among a sample of women living with HIV. METHODS: Four focus groups, with a total of 24 adult women (96% African-American, 88% HIV-positive), were conducted in Jacksonville, FL, Washington, DC and Chicago, IL. Focus group discussions were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim; a conventional content analysis approach was used to identify themes, that were then grouped according to a biopsychosocial model. RESULTS: Regarding reasons for drinking, women described themes that included biological (addiction, to manage pain), psychological (coping, to escape bad experiences, to feel in control), and social (peer pressure, family). Themes related to consequences from alcohol included biological (damage to body, poor adherence to medications), psychological (risky or regrettable behavior, memory loss), and social (jail, loss of respect, poor choices). When discussing how their drinking impacted their health, women focused on broader issues, rather than HIV-specific issues. CONCLUSION: Many women living with HIV are drinking alcohol in order to self-manage pain or emotions, and their perceived consequences from drinking extend beyond HIV-specific medical issues. Most participants described themes related to psychological issues and situations that are common in women living with HIV. Interventions to address drinking should inquire more specifically about drinking to manage pain or emotion, and help women to recognize the potential adverse impact of alcohol on comorbid health issues, including their own HIV infection.

Office-based motivational interviewing to prevent childhood obesity: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pediatricians and dietitians can implement an office-based obesity prevention program using motivational interviewing as the primary intervention. DESIGN: Nonrandomized clinical trial. Fifteen pediatricians belonging to Pediatric Research in Office Settings, a national practice-based research network, and 5 registered dietitians were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (1) control; (2) minimal intervention (pediatrician only); or (3) intensive intervention (pediatrician and registered dietitian). SETTING: Primary care pediatric offices. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-one children presenting for well-child care visits met eligibility criteria of being aged 3 to 7 years and having a body mass index (calculated as the weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared) at the 85th percentile or greater but lower than the 95th percentile for the age or having a normal weight and a parent with a body mass index of 30 or greater. INTERVENTIONS: Pediatricians and registered dietitians in the intervention groups received motivational interviewing training. Parents of children in the minimal intervention group received 1 motivational interviewing session from the physician, and parents of children in the intensive intervention group received 2 motivational interviewing sessions each from the pediatrician and the registered dietitian. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in the body mass index-for-age percentile. RESULTS: At 6 months' follow-up, there was a decrease of 0.6, 1.9, and 2.6 body mass index percentiles in the control, minimal, and intensive groups, respectively. The differences in body mass index percentile change between the 3 groups were nonsignificant (P=.85). The patient dropout rates were 2 (10%), 13 (32%), and 15 (50%) for the control, minimal, and intensive groups, respectively. Fifteen (94%) of the parents reported that the intervention helped them think about changing their family's eating habits. CONCLUSIONS: Motivational interviewing by pediatricians and dietitians is a promising office-based strategy for preventing childhood obesity. However, additional studies are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of this intervention in practice settings.

Comparing patients seen in pediatric resident continuity clinics and national ambulatory medical care survey practices: a study from the continuity research network.

OBJECTIVES: The goal was to compare visit data from Continuity Research Network practices with data for a nationally representative sample of pediatric visits in practice settings from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. METHODS: A cross-sectional study comparing data for Continuity Research Network practice visits during a 1-week period in 2002 with data from the 2000 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was performed. Continuity Research Network and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data were derived from 30 patient visits per practice site for patients < 22 years of age, with the primary care providers being residents and practicing pediatricians, respectively. RESULTS: Eighteen Continuity Research Network practices reported on 540 visits, compared with 32 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey physicians reporting on 792 visits. Continuity Research Network patients were more likely to be black non-Hispanic or Hispanic/Latino and to have public insurance. The top 5 reasons for visits were the same for Continuity Research Network and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey visits, although the orders varied slightly. These 5 reasons accounted for 58% of Continuity Research Network visits and 49% of National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey visits. Continuity Research Network visits were more likely to result in patient instructions to return at a specific time (78% vs 52%). CONCLUSIONS: Residents in Continuity Research Network practices provide care to more underserved patients but evaluate problems that are similar to those observed in office practices; the Continuity Research Network practices thus provide important training experiences for residents who will serve both minority and nonminority children.

Patient visits to a national practice-based research network: comparing pediatric research in office settings with the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective with this study was to assess the extent to which patients who are seen by practitioners in Pediatric Research in Office Settings, a national primary care practice-based research network, are representative of those who are seen in ambulatory office-based pediatric primary care in the United States. METHODS: Pediatric Research in Office Settings patient data were collected from the offices of 57 randomly selected network practitioners as part of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded effort to describe primary care visits and replicate the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey in primary care practice-based research networks. These data were from 1706 randomly selected pediatric patient visits that occurred between March and June 2002. National comparison data were 948 randomly selected pediatric patient visits that occurred between March and June 2000 in the offices of the 33 primary care pediatric practitioners who had participated in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. The groups were compared on patient demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, as represented by Medicaid status), visit characteristics (percentages of patients referred, practitioner designation of visit as acute versus nonacute, and continuity of care), the top patient/parent-articulated reasons for visit, and the top practitioner diagnoses. RESULTS: Comparisons revealed substantial similarities between Pediatric Research in Office Settings and national data, including gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and visit characteristics. Differences were noted for age and race, with Pediatric Research in Office Settings children approximately 1 year older and comprising a significantly lower proportion of black patients than their National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey counterparts. Although the top 6 reasons that were articulated by parents for outpatient visits in the 2 groups were remarkably similar in rank order and proportions, there were overall differences, mostly attributable to a larger number of the "other" category in the Pediatric Research in Office Settings cases. There were no significant differences among the top 5 practitioner visit diagnoses between the Pediatric Research in Office Settings and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. CONCLUSIONS: The Pediatric Research in Office Settings patient population is reasonably representative of patients who are seen in US ambulatory office-based pediatric primary care practices; therefore, the Pediatric Research in Office Settings is an appropriate laboratory for studies of care in such settings.