CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33HIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

HERMITAGE —a randomized controlled trial to reduce sexually transmitted infections and HIV risk behaviors among HIV ‐infected R ussian drinkers

Open access
Samet, Jeffrey H., Raj, Anita, Cheng, Debbie M., Blokhina, Elena, Bridden, Carly, Chaisson, Christine E., Walley, Alexander Y., Palfai, Tibor P. +4 more·2015·Addiction
DOI 10.1111/add.12716PMC PMC4270840
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aims: This study assessed the effectiveness of HERMITAGE ( HIV 's E volution in R ussia— M itigating I nfection T ransmission and A lcoholism in a G rowing E pidemic), an adapted secondary HIV prevention intervention, compared with an attention control condition in decreasing sexually transmitted infections ( STI s) and sex and drug risk behaviors among R ussian HIV ‐infected heavy drinkers. Design: We conducted a single‐blinded, two‐armed, randomized controlled trial with 12‐month follow‐up. Setting: The study was conducted in S t P etersburg, R ussia. Participants were recruited from four HIV and addiction clinical sites. The intervention was conducted at B otkin I nfectious D isease H ospital. Participants: HIV ‐infected individuals with past 6‐month risky sex and heavy alcohol consumption ( n = 700) were randomized to the HERMITAGE intervention ( n = 350) or an attention control condition ( n = 350). Intervention: A H ealthy R elationships I ntervention stressing disclosure of HIV serostatus and condom use, adapted for a R ussian clinical setting with two individual sessions and three small group sessions. Measurements: The primary outcome was incident STI by laboratory test at 12‐month follow‐up. Secondary outcomes included change in unprotected sex and several alcohol and injection drug use ( IDU ) variables. Findings: Participants had the following baseline characteristics: 59.3% male, mean age 30.1, 60.4% past year IDU , 15.4% prevalent STI and mean CD 4 cell count 413.3/μl. Assessment occurred among 75 and 71% of participants at 6 and 12 months, respectively. STI s occurred in 20 subjects (8.1%) in the intervention group and 28 subjects (12.0%) in the control group at 12‐month follow‐up; logistic regression analyses found no significant difference between groups (adjusted odds ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval = 0.34–1.18; P = 0.15). Both groups decreased unsafe behaviors, although no significant differences were found between groups. Conclusions: The HERMITAGE HIV risk reduction intervention does not appear to reduce sexually transmitted infections and HIV risk behaviors in R ussian HIV ‐infected heavy drinkers compared with attention controls.

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 · 10.1111/add.12716

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • In Samet 2015, blinding of outcome assessment was judged to be at high risk of detection bias.

    “Outcomes reported by participant not blind to intervention”

    From Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries (2023) · cites this paper as Samet 2015

    The Methods (Randomization and Blinding; Secondary Outcomes, page unavailable) state that participants could not be blinded and that several secondary outcomes were self-reported. However, the primary STI outcome was measured by laboratory test (Methods, Primary Outcomes), so the explanation does not apply to all outcomes. The paper does not itself assign a high-risk detection-bias rating. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Samet 2015, incomplete outcome data was judged to be at low risk of attrition bias.

    “For the primary efficacy analyses only the observed data were used, imputation of missing data was not performed. However subsequent sensitivity analyses were performed using multiple imputation to account for missing follow‐up data for the primary outcome.”

    From Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries (2023) · cites this paper as Samet 2015

    The Results report no differential follow-up between groups, and the Methods and Discussion report that multiple-imputation sensitivity analyses gave similar conclusions. These findings bear on attrition bias, but the paper does not judge incomplete outcome data to be at low risk of bias; the Discussion instead calls follow-up suboptimal. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Samet 2015, blinding of participants and personnel was judged to be at high risk of performance bias.

    “The research participants could not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention.”

    From Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries (2023) · cites this paper as Samet 2015

    The Methods section (“Randomization and Blinding”) states that participants could not be blinded because of the intervention, supporting the citing sentence. It does not say that personnel were unblinded or judge performance bias to be high risk; it says research associates conducting assessments were blinded. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Samet 2015, allocation concealment was judged to be at unclear risk of selection bias.

    “Not described”

    From Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries (2023) · cites this paper as Samet 2015

  • In Samet 2015, random sequence generation was judged to be at low risk of selection bias.

    “Participants were assigned to either the intervention or control group using stratified‐blocked randomization.”

    From Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries (2023) · cites this paper as Samet 2015

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [71]Beck AT Beck Depression Inventory - Second Edition. Copyright 1996 Aaron T. Beck. Russian translation, Copyright 2007, Aaron T. Beck Pearson Education, Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Samet, J. H., Raj, A., Cheng, D. M., Blokhina, E., Bridden, C., Chaisson, C. E., Walley, A. Y., Palfai, T. P., Quinn, E. K., Zvartau, E., Lioznov, D., & Krupitsky, E.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • First Pavlov State Medical University of St. Petersburg (RU)
  • Boston Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Samet, Jeffrey H.
ORCID
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-16
Volume
110
Issue
1
Pages
80-90
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
DOI
10.1111/add.12716
PMC
PMC4270840
OpenAlex
W1599558717
Semantic Scholar
183fffa0f45d1aa4fb9a25061b17d7beb2c0997d
Cited by
33
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA016059, U24AA020778, U24AA020779, K24AA015674)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
HIV, sexually transmitted infections, HIV risk reduction interventions, heavy drinking, alcohol consumption, intravenous drug use, condom use, HIV status disclosure, sexual risk behavior
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Female, Humans, Male, Psychotherapy, Risk-Taking, Russia, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, HIV Infections, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Condoms, Risk Reduction Behavior, Unsafe Sex, Secondary Prevention

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