Suppr超能文献

从头再来?对跨理论模型在物质使用方面应用的综述

Back to the drawing board? A review of applications of the transtheoretical model to substance use.

作者信息

Sutton S

机构信息

Health Behaviour Unit, University College London, Brook House, 2-16 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK.

出版信息

Addiction. 2001 Jan;96(1):175-86. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.96117513.x.

Abstract

The transtheoretical model (TTM) is still enormously popular with practitioners, clinicians and many researchers in the addictions field. However, in a recent years a number of commentators have criticized aspects of the model and the research based on it. This paper extends a recent critique of the TTM as applied to smoking cessation to include applications of the model to cessation or reduction of alcohol or drug use. The first section discusses measures of the central construct of stages of change and notes a number of serious problems. Staging algorithms are based on arbitrary time periods and some are logically flawed. In the case of multi-dimensional questionnaires (the URICA, the SOCRATES and the RCQ), the pattern of correlations among the subscales shows that they are not measuring discrete stages of change. The one study to date that has compared the two different methods found low concordance, which is probably due to incompatible stage definitions. In the second section of the paper, the evidence base for the TTM is reviewed. The review is organized by the four research designs that have been used to test predictions from stage models: cross-sectional comparisons of people in different stages; examination of stage sequences; longitudinal prediction of stage transitions; and experimental studies of matched and mismatched interventions. It concludes that current evidence for the model as applied to substance use is meagre and inconsistent. Researchers are urged to develop better stage models.

摘要

跨理论模型(TTM)在成瘾领域的从业者、临床医生和许多研究人员中仍然非常受欢迎。然而,近年来,一些评论家批评了该模型及其相关研究的某些方面。本文扩展了最近对TTM应用于戒烟的批评,将该模型在戒酒或戒毒方面的应用也纳入其中。第一部分讨论了改变阶段这一核心构念的测量方法,并指出了一些严重问题。分期算法基于任意时间段,有些在逻辑上存在缺陷。对于多维问卷(URICA、SOCRATES和RCQ),各子量表之间的相关模式表明它们并非在测量离散的改变阶段。迄今为止,唯一一项比较两种不同方法的研究发现一致性较低,这可能是由于阶段定义不兼容所致。在本文的第二部分,回顾了TTM的证据基础。该回顾按照用于检验阶段模型预测的四种研究设计进行组织:不同阶段人群的横断面比较;阶段序列的考察;阶段转变的纵向预测;以及匹配和不匹配干预的实验研究。结论是,目前将该模型应用于物质使用的证据不足且不一致。敦促研究人员开发更好的阶段模型。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验