Moyer Anne, Finney John W, Swearingen Carolyn E, Vergun Pamela
Center for Health Care Evaluation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System and Stanford University Medical Center, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Addiction. 2002 Mar;97(3):279-92. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00018.x.
Brief interventions for alcohol use disorders have been the focus of considerable research. In this meta-analytic review, we considered studies comparing brief interventions with either control or extended treatment conditions. We calculated the effect sizes for multiple drinking-related outcomes at multiple follow-up points, and took into account the critical distinction between treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking samples. Most investigations fell into one of two types: those comparing brief interventions with control conditions in non-treatment-seeking samples (n = 34) and those comparing brief interventions with extended treatment in treatment-seeking samples (n = 20). For studies of the first type, small to medium aggregate effect sizes in favor of brief interventions emerged across different follow-up points. At follow-up after > 3-6 months, the effect for brief interventions compared to control conditions was significantly larger when individuals with more severe alcohol problems were excluded. For studies of the second type, the effect sizes were largely not significantly different from zero. This review summarizes additional positive evidence for brief interventions compared to control conditions typically delivered by health-care professionals to non-treatment-seeking samples. The results concur with previous reviews that found little difference between brief and extended treatment conditions. Because the evidence regarding brief interventions comes from different types of investigation with different samples, generalizations should be restricted to the populations, treatment characteristics and contexts represented in those studies.
针对酒精使用障碍的简短干预措施一直是大量研究的重点。在本次荟萃分析综述中，我们纳入了比较简短干预措施与对照或延长治疗条件的研究。我们计算了多个随访点上与饮酒相关的多个结果的效应量，并考虑了寻求治疗样本和未寻求治疗样本之间的关键区别。大多数调查分为两种类型：一类是在未寻求治疗的样本中比较简短干预措施与对照条件（n = 34），另一类是在寻求治疗的样本中比较简短干预措施与延长治疗（n = 20）。对于第一类研究，在不同的随访点上出现了有利于简短干预措施的小到中等程度的总体效应量。在超过3 - 6个月后的随访中，当排除酒精问题较严重的个体时，与对照条件相比，简短干预措施的效果显著更大。对于第二类研究，效应量大多与零无显著差异。本综述总结了与对照条件相比，简短干预措施的更多积极证据，对照条件通常由医疗保健专业人员提供给未寻求治疗的样本。结果与之前的综述一致，即简短治疗和延长治疗条件之间几乎没有差异。由于关于简短干预措施的证据来自不同类型的调查和不同的样本，因此概括应限于这些研究中所代表的人群、治疗特征和背景。
