Participant Satisfaction and Acceptability of a Culturally Adapted Brief Intervention to Reduce Unhealthy Alcohol Use Among Latino Immigrant Men

Abstract

Latino immigrant men are at increased risk for unhealthy alcohol use, yet few interventions have been designed to meet their unique needs. The current study assessed participant satisfaction and acceptability of a culturally adapted brief intervention to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in this population. Adaptations to the brief intervention included delivering it in Spanish by promotores in a community setting. The mixed methods approach included surveys ( N = 73) and in-depth interviews ( N = 20) with participants in a pilot randomized controlled trial. The study drew on Sekhon’s theoretical framework of acceptability to asses affective attitude, burden, and perceived effectiveness of the intervention, along with satisfaction with the content, setting, and promotor. Participants’ survey responses indicated that they were highly satisfied with the content, setting, and delivery of the brief intervention. In interviews participants noted that the brief intervention helped them reflect on their drinking behaviors, that they perceived promotores to be a trusted source of health information, and that they liked receiving personalized feedback via tablets. Some participants found the feedback did not match their own perceptions of their alcohol use and wanted clearer advice on how to reduce their drinking. Men felt they would benefit from more contact with promotores. These findings suggest that Latino immigrant men in this study were receptive to the culturally adapted brief intervention. Future interventions may be more effective if they include multiple contacts with promotores and more directive guidance on strategies to reduce drinking.

Digital Interventions for the Mental Health and Well-Being of International Migrants: A Systematic Review

“…Although some articles included information on the background, objectives, rationale, and design and methodology of digital interventions for international migrants, they also did not include information related to an intervention; therefore, they were also excluded from this review. Studies that measured anything other than mental health and well-being outcomes (i.e., accessibility of an intervention; e.g., Torres et al, 2020) were excluded from this review as well. Furthermore, because different study designs are included in this review, it was not possible to use one consistent measure for the risk of bias across all studies to compare them to each other, rather the studies were divided based on study design and the risk of bias evaluated accordingly.…”

A Review of Community Health Worker Interventions for Latinx/o/a Individuals With Unhealthy Alcohol Use

“…Only 6 articles met the inclusion criteria after full-text review. [9][10][11][12][13][14] Table 1 shows articles that met the inclusion criteria and detailed study data. None involved both alcohol and other SUDs.…”

A survey of speech pathologists’ opinions about the prospective acceptability of an online implementation platform for aphasia services

“…It was developed as a result of a lack of literature both defining and guiding the assessment of acceptability. The TFA consists of seven component constructs including affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness and self-efficacy (see Figure 1 for definitions and Within healthcare, the components of the TFA have been used during the analysis of qualitative interviews and questionnaires with both the deliverers and recipients of the intervention (Archer et al, 2020;Murphy & Gardner, 2019a, 2019bTorres et al, 2020). Archer et al (2020) adopted the TFA to guide an evaluation of clinicians' acceptability of a tool for predicting the risk of breast and ovarian cancer (CanRisk).…”

“…Within healthcare, the components of the TFA have been used during the analysis of qualitative interviews and questionnaires with both the deliverers and recipients of the intervention (Archer et al., 2020; Murphy & Gardner, 2019a, 2019b; Torres et al., 2020). Archer et al.…”