McKay James R, Lynch Kevin G, Shepard Donald S, Morgenstern Jon, Forman Robert F, Pettinati Helen M
University of Pennsylvania, Treatment Research Center, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Addiction. 2005 Feb;100(2):216-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00972.x.
To determine whether substance use severity, psychiatric severity, social support, self-help attendance or motivation moderated substance use outcomes in a telephone-based continuing care intervention.
A randomized study comparing three 12-week continuing care interventions: weekly telephone monitoring and counseling combined with a support group in the first 4 weeks (TEL), twice-weekly individualized relapse prevention (RP) and twice-weekly standard group counseling (STND).
Following completion of 4-week intensive out-patient programs (IOP), 359 patients with alcohol and/or cocaine dependence were assigned randomly to a continuing care condition and followed quarterly for 12 months. Ten potential moderator variables were examined in separate analyses. Two of these variables reflected pretreatment status, whereas the other variables were focused on performance while in the IOP. A composite risk measure was also constructed from dichotomized versions of seven of these variables, with higher scores indicating greater potential for relapse. The dependent measures were total abstinence and percentage of days abstinent from alcohol and cocaine in each quarter.
Of 40 interaction contrasts that were examined with individual risk indicator measures, only one reached the 0.05 level of significance. Patients with any alcohol use in IOP had a higher percentage of days abstinence in STND than in TEL. In addition, high scores on the composite risk indicator predicted higher total abstinence rates in STND than in TEL, whereas low to moderate scores predicted higher abstinence rates in TEL than in STND.
For most graduates of IOPs, the combination of brief weekly telephone therapeutic contacts and a support group in the first month produced outcomes that are as good as those obtained in more intensive face-to-face continuing care interventions. However, patients with current dependence on both alcohol and cocaine who make little progress towards achieving the central goals of IOP may have better outcomes if they receive twice-weekly group counseling following IOP.
确定在基于电话的持续护理干预中,物质使用严重程度、精神疾病严重程度、社会支持、自助参与度或动机是否会调节物质使用结果。
一项随机研究,比较三种为期12周的持续护理干预措施:在最初4周内每周进行电话监测和咨询并结合一个支持小组(TEL)、每周两次的个性化预防复发(RP)以及每周两次的标准小组咨询(STND)。
在完成为期4周的强化门诊项目(IOP)后,359名酒精和/或可卡因依赖患者被随机分配到一种持续护理条件下,并每季度随访12个月。在单独分析中检查了10个潜在的调节变量。其中两个变量反映治疗前状态,而其他变量则关注在IOP期间的表现。还从这些变量中的7个的二分版本构建了一个综合风险指标,得分越高表明复发可能性越大。因变量是每个季度的完全戒酒情况以及酒精和可卡因戒酒天数的百分比。
在使用个体风险指标测量进行检查的40个交互对比中,只有一个达到了0.05的显著性水平。在IOP中有任何酒精使用的患者在STND中的戒酒天数百分比高于TEL。此外,综合风险指标得分高预测STND中的完全戒酒率高于TEL,而低至中等得分预测TEL中的戒酒率高于STND。
对于大多数IOP毕业生来说,在第一个月每周进行简短的电话治疗接触并结合一个支持小组所产生的结果与在更强化的面对面持续护理干预中获得的结果一样好。然而,目前同时依赖酒精和可卡因且在实现IOP核心目标方面进展甚微的患者,如果在IOP后接受每周两次的小组咨询,可能会有更好的结果。