Bechdolf A, Pohlmann B, Geyer C, Ferber C, Klosterkötter J, Gouzoulis-Mayfrank E
Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie der Universität zu Köln.
Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2005 Dec;73(12):728-35. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-830258.
Patients with schizophrenia and substance abuse disorders [dually diagnosed patients (DD)] show an unfavourable course of the illness and little interest in participating on specific integrated treatment programmes. Motivational interviewing (MI) has been shown to be effective among other substance abuse disorders and it aims to enhance intrinsic motivation to change problem behaviour. MI has been adapted for DD. The present paper reviews the empirical evidence for the efficacy of MI in DD. A search in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO was conducted and the methodological quality of the identified trials was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration and to the JADAD Scale. We identified 4 randomised studies with a total of 346 participants, in which MI interventions of 1 to 3 sessions were compared with various control conditions over a follow-up period of up to 6 months. With regard to the main outcome measures "subsequent participation at integrated treatment programme" (1 x positive, 2 x negative) and "substance use" (1 x positive, 1 x negative,) the studies gained contradictory results. In all 4 studies, there were relevant general methodological limitations (randomisation, blindness of raters, description of the reasons for drop-outs) and specific methodological shortcomings (sample size and sample homogenity, numbers of MI sessions, assessment of motivational status). Hence, at present the evidence for supporting MI in DD is not clear. This may be due to the methodological problems mentioned above or it may be that there is, in fact, no effect. Therefore, there is an urgent need for further research of MI in DD.
患有精神分裂症和物质使用障碍的患者[双重诊断患者(DD)]病情发展不利,且对参与特定的综合治疗项目兴趣不大。动机性访谈(MI)已被证明在其他物质使用障碍中有效,其目的是增强改变问题行为的内在动机。MI已被改编用于双重诊断患者。本文综述了MI在双重诊断患者中疗效的实证证据。我们在MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO数据库中进行了检索,并根据Cochrane协作组和JADAD量表评估了所纳入试验的方法学质量。我们确定了4项随机研究,共有346名参与者,其中将1至3次疗程的MI干预与各种对照条件在长达6个月的随访期内进行了比较。关于主要结局指标“随后参与综合治疗项目”(1项为阳性,2项为阴性)和“物质使用”(1项为阳性,1项为阴性),这些研究得出了相互矛盾的结果。在所有4项研究中,都存在相关的一般方法学局限性(随机化、评估者盲法、失访原因描述)和特定的方法学缺陷(样本量和样本同质性、MI疗程数、动机状态评估)。因此,目前支持MI用于双重诊断患者的证据并不明确。这可能是由于上述方法学问题,也可能实际上没有效果。因此,迫切需要对双重诊断患者中的MI进行进一步研究。