Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 1893–1906 | Cite as

Examining the Efficacy of HIV Risk-Reduction Counseling on the Sexual Risk Behaviors of a National Sample of Drug Abuse Treatment Clients: Analysis of Subgroups

  • Lauren GoodenEmail author
  • Lisa R. Metsch
  • Margaret R. Pereyra
  • C. Kevin Malotte
  • Louise F. Haynes
  • Antoine Douaihy
  • Jack Chally
  • Raul N. Mandler
  • Daniel J. Feaster
Original Paper
  • 279 Downloads

Abstract

HIV counseling with testing has been part of HIV prevention in the U.S. since the 1980s. Despite the long-standing history of HIV testing with prevention counseling, the CDC released HIV testing recommendations for health care settings contesting benefits of prevention counseling with testing in reducing sexual risk behaviors among HIV-negatives in 2006. Efficacy of brief HIV risk-reduction counseling (RRC) in decreasing sexual risk among subgroups of substance use treatment clients was examined using multi-site RCT data. Interaction tests between RRC and subgroups were performed; multivariable regression evaluated the relationship between RRC (with rapid testing) and sex risk. Subgroups were defined by demographics, risk type and level, attitudes/perceptions, and behavioral history. There was an effect (p < .0028) of counseling on number of sex partners among some subgroups. Certain subgroups may benefit from HIV RRC; this should be examined in studies with larger sample sizes, designed to assess the specific subgroup(s).

Keywords

HIV Prevention Counseling Substance use Drug treatment 

Resumen

Consejería con pruebas de VIH han sido parte de la prevención de VIH en los EE.UU. desde los 1980s. A pesar de una larga historia de pruebas de VIH con consejería sobre prevención, en el 2006 el CDC publicó una serie de recomendaciones para los centros de atención de salud disputando los beneficios de la consejería sobre prevención con pruebas para la reducción de comportamientos sexuales de riesgo entre personas VIH-negativas. Se examinó la eficacia de la consejería breve sobre reducción de riesgo (RRC, por sus siglas en inglés) de VIH en la disminución del riesgo sexual entre subgrupos de pacientes en tratamiento de uso de sustancias utilizando datos de un ensayo clínico multi-centro. Se realizaron pruebas de interacción entre RCC y los subgrupos; una regresión multivariada donde se evaluó la relación entre RCC (con pruebas rápida) y riesgo sexual. Los subgrupos fueron definidos por las características sociodemográficas, tipo y nivel de riesgo, actitudes/percepciones e historial de comportamiento. Se encontró que la consejería tuvo efecto (p < .0028) en el número de parejas sexuales entre algunos subgrupos. Ciertos subgrupos podrían beneficiarse de RRC de VIH; esto debe ser examinado en estudios con muestras más grandes, diseñados para evaluar subgrupos específicos.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network under the following cooperative agreements, awards, and contracts: U10DA013720, U10DA13720-09S, U10DA020036, U10DA15815, U10DA13034, U10DA013038, U10DA013732, U10DA13036, U10DA13727, U10DA015833, HHSN271200522081C, and HHSN271200522071C. Lisa R. Metsch, Ph.D. and Grant N. Colfax, M.D. were the Lead Investigators of the parent trial. Lauren Gooden, Lisa R. Metsch, Margaret R. Pereyra, C. Kevin Malotte, Louise F. Haynes, Antoine Douaihy, Jacky Chally and Daniel J. Feaster reported that their respective institutions received grant funds from the study sponsor in support of this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

LG, LRM, MRP, CKM, LFH, AD, JC and DJF reported that their respective institutions received grant funds from the study sponsor in support of this study. LG, LRM, AD, and JC reported that their respective institutions received support for travel related to this study. LG and JC reported that they and their respective institutions received funding from other grants from the study sponsor. No other disclosures were reported.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB) reviewed and approved all procedures related to the parent trial.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, et al. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006;55(RR-14):1–17 quiz CE1-4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vermund SH, Hodder SL, Justman JE, et al. Addressing research priorities for prevention of HIV infection in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;15(50 Suppl 3):S149–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boone MR, Cook SH, Wilson P. Substance use and sexual risk behavior in HIV-positive men who have sex with men: an episode-level analysis. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(5):1883–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyrer C, Wirtz AL, Baral S, Peryskina A, Sifakis F. Epidemiologic links between drug use and HIV epidemics: an international perspective. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55(Suppl 1):S10–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Booth RE, Campbell BK, Mikulich-Gilbertson SK, et al. Reducing HIV-related risk behaviors among injection drug users in residential detoxification. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(1):30–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ross MW, Hwang LY, Zack C, Bull L, Williams ML. Sexual risk behaviours and STIs in drug abuse treatment populations whose drug of choice is crack cocaine. Int J STD AIDS. 2002;13(11):769–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Masur H, Michelis MA, Greene JB, et al. An outbreak of community-acquired Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia: initial manifestation of cellular immune dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 1981;305(24):1431–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Phillips B, et al. Global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. Lancet. 2008;372(9651):1733–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Cock KM, Jaffe HW, Curran JW. Reflections on 30 years of AIDS. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(6):1044–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gostin L. The epidemics of injection drug use and blood-borne disease: a public health perspective. Georgetown University Law Center. Val U L Rev. 1997;31:669–700.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mathers B, Cook C, Degenhardt L. Improving the data to strengthen the global response to HIV among people who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21(2):100–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Risk, Prevention, and Testing Behaviors Related to HIV and Hepatitis Infections—National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System: Injecting Drug Users, May 2005–February 2006. HIV Special Surveillance Report 7. 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_hiv_surveillance_special_report_no_7.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2011.
  13. 13.
    Broz D, Wejnert C, Pham HT, et al. HIV infection and risk, prevention, and testing behaviors among injecting drug users—National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System, 20 U.S. cities, 2009. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014;63(6):1–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Volkow ND, Montaner J. Enhanced HIV testing, treatment, and support for HIV-infected substance users. JAMA. 2010;303(14):1423–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Telang F, Jayne M, Wong C. Stimulant-induced enhanced sexual desire as a potential contributing factor in HIV transmission. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(1):157–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV-associated behaviors among injecting-drug users–23 Cities, United States, May 2005-February 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(13):329–32.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Molitor F, Truax SR, Ruiz JD, Sun RK. Association of methamphetamine use during sex with risky sexual behaviors and HIV infection among non-injection drug users. West J Med. 1998;168(2):93–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strathdee SA, Sherman SG. The role of sexual transmission of HIV infection among injection and non-injection drug users. J Urban Health. 2003;80(4 Suppl 3):iii7–14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marshall BD, Wood E. Toward a comprehensive approach to HIV prevention for people who use drugs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55(Suppl 1):S23–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV infection and HIV-associated behaviors among injecting drug users—20 cities, United States, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(8):133–8.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tross S, Hanner J, Hu MC, Pavlicova M, Campbell A, Nunes EV. Substance use and high risk sexual behaviors among women in psychosocial outpatient and methadone maintenance treatment programs. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2009;35(5):368–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Calsyn DA, Cousins SJ, Hatch-Maillette MA, et al. Sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol: common for men in substance abuse treatment and associated with high-risk sexual behavior. Am J Addict. 2010;19(2):119–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McHugh RK, Weitzman M, Safren SA, Murray HW, Pollack MH, Otto MW. Sexual HIV risk behaviors in a treatment-refractory opioid-dependent sample. J Psychoact Drugs. 2012;44(3):237–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Metsch LR, Feaster DJ, Gooden L, et al. Implementing rapid HIV testing with or without risk-reduction counseling in drug treatment centers: results of a randomized trial. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(6):1160–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schackman BR, Metsch LR, Colfax GN, et al. The cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing in substance abuse treatment: results of a randomized trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;128(1–2):90–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    The White House Office of National AIDS Policy. National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States: Updated to 2020. 2015. https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/national-hiv-aids-strategy/nhas-update.pdf. Accessed Aug 11, 2015.
  27. 27.
    Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). HIV testing objectives. 2011. http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicId=22. Accessed Aug 8, 2011.
  28. 28.
    Kellam SG, Brown CH, Poduska JM, et al. Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;1(95 Suppl 1):S5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gibbons RD, Hur K, Brown CH, Davis JM, Mann JJ. Benefits from antidepressants: synthesis of 6-week patient-level outcomes from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials of fluoxetine and venlafaxine. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69(6):572–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Materson BJ. Variability in response to antihypertensive drugs. Am J Med. 2007;120(4 Suppl 1):S10–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stroup TS. Heterogeneity of treatment effects in schizophrenia. Am J Med. 2007;120(4 Suppl 1):S26–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaplan SH, Billimek J, Sorkin DH, Ngo-Metzger Q, Greenfield S. Who can respond to treatment? Identifying patient characteristics related to heterogeneity of treatment effects. Med Care. 2010;48(6 Suppl):S9–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Su X, Meneses K, McNees P, Johnson WO. Interaction trees: exploring the differential effects of an intervention programme for breast cancer survivors. J R Stat Soc C-App. 2011;60:457–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Metcalf CA, Douglas JM Jr, Malotte CK, et al. Relative efficacy of prevention counseling with rapid and standard HIV testing: a randomized, controlled trial (RESPECT-2). Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32(2):130–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Koblin B, Chesney M, Coates T, EXPLORE Study Team. Effects of a behavioural intervention to reduce acquisition of HIV infection among men who have sex with men: the EXPLORE randomised controlled study. Lancet. 2004;364(9428):41–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Koblin BA, Husnik MJ, Colfax G, et al. Risk factors for HIV infection among men who have sex with men. AIDS. 2006;20(5):731–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clark LR, Brasseux C, Richmond D, Getson P, D’Angelo LJ. Effect of HIV counseling and testing on sexually transmitted diseases and condom use in an urban adolescent population. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152(3):269–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bolu OO, Lindsey C, Kamb ML, et al. Is HIV/sexually transmitted disease prevention counseling effective among vulnerable populations?: a subset analysis of data collected for a randomized, controlled trial evaluating counseling efficacy (Project RESPECT). Sex Transm Dis. 2004;31(8):469–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kamb ML, Fishbein M, Douglas JM Jr, et al. Efficacy of risk-reduction counseling to prevent human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted diseases: a randomized controlled trial. Project RESPECT Study Group. JAMA. 1998;280(13):1161–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Song YS, Calsyn DA, Doyle SR, Dierst-Davies R, Chen T, Sorensen JL. Predictors of condom use among men enrolled in drug treatment programs. AIDS Educ Prev. 2009;21(5):460–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Characteristics associated with HIV infection among heterosexuals in urban areas with high AIDS prevalence—24 cities, United States, 2006-2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60(31):1045–9.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brown-Peterside P, Redding CA, Ren L, Koblin BA. Acceptability of a stage-matched expert system intervention to increase condom use among women at high risk of HIV infection in New York City. AIDS Educ Prev. 2000;12(2):171–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Catania JA, Kegeles SM, Coates TJ. Towards an understanding of risk behavior: an AIDS risk reduction model (ARRM). Health Educ Q. Spring. 1990;17(1):53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Becker MH. AIDS and behavior change. Public Health Rev. 1998;16:1–11.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brafford LJ, Beck KH. Development and validation of a condom self-efficacy scale for college students. J Am Coll Health. 1991;39(5):219–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brien TM, Thombs DL, Mahoney CA, Wallnau L. Dimensions of self-efficacy among three distinct groups of condom users. J Am Coll Health. 1994;42(4):167–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    DeHart DD, Birkimer JC. Trying to practice safer sex: development of the sexual risks scale. J Sex Res. 1997;34(1):11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yudko E, Lozhkina O, Fouts A. A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the drug abuse screening test. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32(2):189–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rietmeijer CA. Risk reduction counselling for prevention of sexually transmitted infections: how it works and how to make it work. Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83(1):2–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dilley JW, Woods WJ, Sabatino J, et al. Changing sexual behavior among gay male repeat testers for HIV: a randomized, controlled trial of a single-session intervention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30(2):177–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wolfe D, Cohen J. Human rights and HIV prevention, treatment, and care for people who inject drugs: key principles and research needs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55(Suppl 1):S56–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wohl DA, Rosen D, Kaplan AH. HIV and incarceration: dual epidemics. AIDS Read. 2006;16(5):247–.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Corneil TA, Kuyper LM, Shoveller J, et al. Unstable housing, associated risk behaviour, and increased risk for HIV infection among injection drug users. Health Place. 2006;12(1):79–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Surratt HL, Inciardi JA. HIV risk, seropositivity and predictors of infection among homeless and non-homeless women sex workers in Miami, Florida. USA. AIDS Care. 2004;16(5):594–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aidala AA, Lee G, Garbers S, Chiasson MA. Sexual behaviors and sexual risk in a prospective cohort of HIV-positive men and women in New York City, 1994-2002: implications for prevention. AIDS Educ Prev. 2006;18(1):12–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dickson-Gomez J, Hilario H, Convey M, Corbett AM, Weeks M, Martinez M. The relationship between housing status and HIV risk among active drug users: a qualitative analysis. Subst Use Misuse. 2009;44(2):139–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The role of STD detection and treatment in HIV prevention—CDC fact sheet. 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/std/hiv/stdfact-std-hiv.htm. Accessed July, 2011.
  58. 58.
    Ng BE, Butler LM, Horvath T, Rutherford GW. Population-based biomedical sexually transmitted infection control interventions for reducing HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;16(3):1220.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stein JA, Nyamathi A, Ullman JB, Bentler PM. Impact of marriage on HIV/AIDS risk behaviors among impoverished, at-risk couples: a multilevel latent variable approach. AIDS Behav. 2007;11(1):87–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Finer LB, Darroch JE, Singh S. Sexual partnership patterns as a behavioral risk factor for sexually transmitted diseases. Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;31(5):228–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rush AJ, Trivedi MH, Ibrahim HM, et al. The 16-item quick inventory of depressive symptomatology (QIDS), clinician rating (QIDS-C), and self-report (QIDS-SR): a psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54(5):573–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mizuno Y, Purcell DW, Mackenzie S, et al. Acceptability of A-CASI by HIV-positive IDUs in a multisite, randomized, controlled trial of behavioral intervention (INSPIRE). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;1(46 Suppl 2):S48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zimmerman RS, Langer LM. Improving estimates of prevalence rates of sensitive behaviors: the randomized lists technique and consideration of self-reported honesty. J Sex Res. 1995;32:107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Metsch LR, Feaster DJ, Gooden L, et al. Effect of risk-reduction counseling with rapid HIV testing on risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections: the aware randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(16):1701–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Peterman TA, Lin LS, Newman DR, et al. Does measured behavior reflect STD risk? An analysis of data from a randomized controlled behavioral intervention study. Project RESPECT study Group. Sex Transm Dis. 2000;27(8):446–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Weinhardt LS, Carey MP, Johnson BT, Bickham NL. Effects of HIV counseling and testing on sexual risk behavior: a meta-analytic review of published research, 1985-1997. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1397–405.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Recommendations for HIV testing services and outpatients in acute-care hospital settings; and Technical guidance on HIV counseling. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1993;42(2):5–9.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000;355(9209):1064–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey SG. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(33):1–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Brookes ST, Whitely E, Egger M, Smith GD, Mulheran PA, Peters TJ. Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(3):229–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cui L, Hung HM, Wang SJ, Tsong Y. Issues related to subgroup analysis in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2002;12(3):347–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lagakos SW. The challenge of subgroup analyses–reporting without distorting. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(16):1667–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Peto R, Collins R, Gray R. Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):23–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med. 2002;21(19):2917–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rothwell PM. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet. 2005;365(9454):176–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler HA. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1991;266(1):93–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Hunter DJ, Drazen JM. Statistics in medicine–reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(21):2189–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chen X, Ishwaran H. Random forests for genomic data analysis. Genomics. 2012;99(6):323–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Foster JC, Taylor JM, Ruberg SJ. Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data. Stat Med. 2011;30(24):2867–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren Gooden
    • 1
    • 2
    • 9
    Email author
  • Lisa R. Metsch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Margaret R. Pereyra
    • 1
    • 2
    • 9
  • C. Kevin Malotte
    • 3
  • Louise F. Haynes
    • 4
  • Antoine Douaihy
    • 5
  • Jack Chally
    • 6
    • 7
  • Raul N. Mandler
    • 8
  • Daniel J. Feaster
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public HealthColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Public Health Sciences, Miller School of MedicineUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health ScienceCalifornia State UniversityLong BeachUSA
  4. 4.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral ScienceMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  5. 5.University of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA
  6. 6.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  7. 7.EMMES Corporation, Inc.RockvilleUSA
  8. 8.National Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  9. 9.Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Miami Research CenterColumbia UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations