A randomized trial of a parent-based intervention on drinking behavior among incoming college freshmen.

OBJECTIVE: Despite research suggesting that parental involvement can affect alcohol involvement among adolescents, few studies have focused on parent-based alcohol prevention strategies among college undergraduates. We report the results of a randomized trial of a parent-based intervention (PBI) in a sample of college freshmen. METHOD: Across two cohorts, 724 incoming freshman-parent dyads completed baseline assessments and were randomly assigned to PBI or intervention as usual (an alcohol fact sheet for parents). Student follow-up assessments were completed at 4 and 8 months. RESULTS: Two-part latent growth curve modeling was used to test hypothesized intervention effects. Outcome variables were drinks per week (past month), heavy episodic drinking (past 2 weeks), and alcohol-related problems (past 3 months). Over the 8-month follow-up period, PBI had a significant effect on drinks per week but not heavy episodic drinking or alcohol-related problems. Specifically, compared with students in the intervention-as-usual condition, students receiving the PBI were significantly less likely to transition from nondrinker to drinker status and showed less growth in drinking over the freshman year. However, the direct PBI effect on growth was qualified by a PBI x Gender interaction, with probes indicating that the effect applied to women but not men in the PBI condition. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends previous research by demonstrating the potential utility for PBIs to decrease the likelihood of transitioning into drinker status and, at least for women, for slowing growth in drinking over the freshman year.

Results of a physician survey on ordering viral load testing. Opportunity for laboratory consultation.

OBJECTIVE: To profile physicians' practices, utilization, and understanding of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA (viral load) testing and the laboratory's role in this testing. DESIGN: Cross sectional study using a 34-item self-report survey mailed to physicians identified as requesting viral load testing, with follow-up mailings to nonresponders. PARTICIPANTS: A sampling of US physicians specializing in infectious diseases, internal medicine, and family practice associated with high, medium, and low human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome incidence areas. RESULTS: Most respondents using viral load results were infectious diseases specialists practicing in urban areas. The reasons most frequently given for requesting viral load testing were (1) to assist in patient follow-up or monitoring (75.4%), and (2) to initiate/guide therapy (62.5%). Respondents indicated that the interpretation and use of viral load results presented difficulty in the areas of patient treatment and in determining what change from baseline was clinically significant. Few respondents used the testing laboratory pathologist as a resource for interpreting viral load test results. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that physicians have questions about (1) the meaning of viral load tests, (2) how often to monitor the viral load, and (3) what change from baseline of the viral load is significant. Few physicians avail themselves of the expertise available in the laboratory for testing viral loads and interpreting such results.

HIV-1 antiretroviral resistance testing laboratories.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and to describe the genotyping and the phenotyping testing practices of U.S. laboratories performing patient HIV-1 antiretroviral resistance testing. DESIGN: A self-report 44-item mailed questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Laboratories potentially performing HIV-1 antiretroviral resistance testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Descriptive study. RESULTS: Of 236 laboratories surveyed, 165 (69.9%) returned completed surveys, but only 23 performed HIV-1 antiretroviral resistance testing. Most were university hospitals (47.8%) or independent laboratories (26.1%). All 23 laboratories used genotypic methods, while nine (39.1%) used both genotyping and phenotyping. Most testing was used for clinical trials or laboratory research. The amount of patient information collected by laboratories varied, as did their type of quality assurance measures. Variation was found with regard to: testing volume, testing experience, testing reasons, testing methods availability, testing controls, specimen treatment, and storage stability. CONCLUSIONS: Due to variation in practices in this area of patient testing, it may be advantageous for laboratory professionals to reach a consensus on what is the most acceptable.