Adamson Simon J, Sellman Douglas J, Dore Glenys M
National Addiction Centre, Department of Psychological Medicine, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Science, New Zealand.
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2005 May;24(3):209-16. doi: 10.1080/09595230500167502.
The Brief Treatment Programme for Alcohol Dependence allocated 122 clients randomly to three different forms of brief therapy. Prior to allocation clients were asked what their preference would have been had allocation not been random. This study posed the question: did clients receiving their preferred treatment have a better outcome than those who did not? Also examined were differences in the treatment process variables of perceived effectiveness, satisfaction, rapport, engagement and number of sessions attended. The results were that there was no difference in either outcome or treatment process according to whether or not clients were allocated to their treatment of preference. It is concluded that these findings reinforce both the ethicality of the randomized controlled trial as a methodology for examining differential treatment outcomes in individual brief treatment of between one and five sessions for alcohol dependence and the validity of these findings as they might relate to real clinical settings. Finally, it is suggested that other researchers consider the inclusion of questions related to client preference.
酒精依赖简短治疗方案将122名客户随机分配到三种不同形式的简短治疗中。在分配之前，询问客户如果分配不是随机的，他们会选择哪种治疗。本研究提出了一个问题：接受其首选治疗的客户是否比未接受首选治疗的客户有更好的治疗效果？同时还研究了治疗过程变量在感知有效性、满意度、融洽关系、参与度和参加治疗 sessions 的数量方面的差异。结果是，根据客户是否被分配到他们首选的治疗中，治疗效果或治疗过程均无差异。得出的结论是，这些发现既强化了随机对照试验作为一种方法的伦理合理性，该方法用于研究在针对酒精依赖的一至五次简短个体治疗中不同治疗效果，也强化了这些发现与实际临床环境相关的有效性。最后，建议其他研究人员考虑纳入与客户偏好相关的问题。
