Cited by 4Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Costs of a Brief Alcohol Consumption Reduction Intervention for Persons Living with HIV in Southwestern Uganda: Comparisons of Live Versus Automated Cell Phone-Based Booster Components

Open access
Hahn, Judith A., Kevany, Sebastian, Emenyonu, Nneka I., Sanyu, Naomi, Katusiime, Anita, Muyindike, Winnie R., Fatch, Robin, Shade, Starley B.·2023·AIDS and Behavior

Abstract

Low-cost interventions are needed to reduce alcohol use among persons with HIV (PWH) in low-income settings. Brief alcohol interventions hold promise, and technology may efficiently deliver brief intervention components with high frequency. We conducted a costing study of the components of a randomized trial that compared a counselling-based intervention with two in-person one-on-one sessions supplemented by booster sessions to reinforce the intervention among PWH with unhealthy alcohol use in southwest Uganda. Booster sessions were delivered twice weekly by two-way short message service (SMS) or Interactive Voice Response (IVR), i.e. via technology, or approximately monthly via live calls from counsellors. We found no significant intervention effects compared to the control, however the cost of the types of booster sessions differed. Start up and recurring costs for the technology-delivered booster sessions were 2.5 to 3 times the cost per participant of the live-call delivered booster intervention for 1000 participants. These results suggest technology-based interventions for PWH are unlikely to be lower cost than person-delivered interventions unless they are at very large scale.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10461-023-04010-6

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two studies conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of BI in Uganda and South Africa.

    “Two studies conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of BI in Uganda [115] and South Africa [116]).”

    From A scoping review of substance use brief interventions in Africa (2024) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Uganda study reports an intervention costing analysis, not a cost-effectiveness analysis. In Discussion > Limitations, the authors explicitly say they were unable to assess cost-effectiveness because the main trial found no statistically significant effects. The separate South Africa citation is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.95)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The authors found no significant intervention effects compared to the control.

    “The authors found no significant intervention effects compared to the control.”

    From A scoping review of substance use brief interventions in Africa (2024) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Abstract says there were no significant intervention effects compared with the control, and the Discussion’s Limitations section likewise describes a lack of statistically significant effects in the main trial. However, the Introduction reports significant effects for each intervention arm on self-reported drinking days, while reporting no effects on PEth or viral suppression. The unqualified claim therefore overlooks a significant outcome reported in the same paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Costs for the technology-delivered booster sessions were 2.5 to 3 times the cost per participant of the live-call delivered booster intervention for 1000 participants.

    “Costs for the technology-delivered booster sessions were 2.5 to 3 times the cost per participant of the live-call delivered booster intervention for 1000 participants [115].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hahn, J. A., Kevany, S., Emenyonu, N. I., Sanyu, N., Katusiime, A., Muyindike, W. R., Fatch, R., & Shade, S. B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Mbarara University of Science and Technology (UG)
Corresponding author
Hahn, Judith A.
Venue
AIDS and Behavior
Published
2023-02-20
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
2865-2874
ISSN
  • 1090-7165 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3254
OpenAlex
W4321478469
Cited by
4
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AIDS and Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA024990, K24 AA024586)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
alcohol consumption reduction, people living with HIV, brief alcohol intervention, booster sessions, technology-based interventions, interactive voice response, short message service, intervention costs, low-cost interventions, Uganda
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Crisis Intervention, Humans, Uganda, HIV Infections, Text Messaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review