ArticleHarm reduction journal2024
Acceptability of a pilot motivational interviewing intervention at public health facilities to improve the HIV treatment cascade among people who inject drugs in Indonesia.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHIV-positive people who inject drugs (PWID) experience challenges in initiating and adhering to antiretroviral treatment (ART). Counselling using motivational interviewing (MI) techniques may help them formulate individualised strategies, and execute actions to address these challenges collaboratively with their providers. We evaluated the acceptability of MI from a pilot implementation at three public health facilities in Indonesia.
methodsAdapting the acceptability constructs developed by Sekhon (2017) we assessed the acceptability to HIV-positive PWID clients (n = 12) and providers (n = 10) in four synthesised constructs: motivation (attributes that inspire engagement); cost consideration (sacrifices made to engage in MI); learned understanding (mechanism of action); and outcomes (ability to effect change with engagement). We included all providers and clients who completed ≥ 2 MI encounters. Qualitative analysis with an interpretive paradigm was used to extract and categorise themes by these constructs.
resultsIn motivation, clients valued the open communication style of MI, while providers appreciated its novelty in offering coherent structure with clear boundaries. In cost consideration, both groups faced a challenge in meeting MI encounters due to access or engagement in other health care areas. In learned understanding, clients understood that MI worked to identify problematic areas of life amenable to change to support long-term ART, with reconciliation in family life being the most targeted change. By contrast, providers preferred targeting tangible health outcomes to such behavioural proxies. In outcomes, clients were confident in their ability to develop behaviours to sustain ART uptakes, whereas providers doubted the outcome of MI on younger PWID or those with severe dependence.
conclusionsThere is broad acceptability of MI in motivating engagement for both actors. Relative to providers, clients were more acceptable in its mechanism and had greater confidence to perform behaviours conducive to ART engagement. Design innovations to improve the acceptability of MI for both actors are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.