Maisto Stephen A, Clifford Patrick R, Davis Christine M
Department of Psychology, Center for Health and Behavior, Syracuse University, 430 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, New York 13244, USA.
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2007 Jul;68(4):529-33. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.529.
This is the second of two articles in this issue on participant reactivity to alcohol treatment research assessment protocols. In the first article, Clifford et al. presented experimental evidence that the combination of less frequent and less comprehensive assessment results in the least assessment reactivity, as measured by alcohol use and related consequences at 1 year after admission for adult outpatient treatment for alcohol problems. In addition, Part I revealed that the presence of either frequent or comprehensive research assessment tends to result in a greater degree of reactivity. This article extends the analyses by Clifford et al. to treatment for substance use-disorders engagement and involvement across a 1-year follow-up.
The design, participants, and procedures were identical to those described in Clifford et al. Treatment data were obtained from hospital records and participants' self-reports as part of the Timeline Followback interview.
Analyses revealed several effects of frequency of assessment and comprehensiveness of assessment on treatment engagement or involvement. The reactivity effect observed varied with the dependent variable, which included if a participant presented for outpatient treatment (more likely in the comprehensive groups), the number of days of outpatient substance use-disorders treatment during follow-up (no reactivity effects), if a participant engaged in intensive treatment for substance-use disorders during follow-up (more likely for the frequent groups in Months 1-6, but the reverse in Months 7-12, and overall more likely in the brief conditions), and the number of days of intensive treatment for substance-use disorders during follow-up (more days in the frequent groups in Months 1-6, no frequency differences in Months 7-12, and overall more days in the brief groups), respectively. Additional analyses showed that treatment participation did not mediate the reactivity effects on alcohol use and related consequences reported by Clifford et al.
Data provide experimental evidence for a causal relationship between frequency of assessment and comprehensiveness of assessment on substance abuse-treatment engagement and involvement. Future research should be directed at understanding the factors in the assessment process that determine reactivity effects.
本文是本期关于参与者对酒精治疗研究评估方案反应性的两篇文章中的第二篇。在第一篇文章中,克利福德等人提供了实验证据,表明评估频率较低且评估内容不太全面相结合时,评估反应性最小,这是通过成年门诊酒精问题患者入院一年后的饮酒情况及相关后果来衡量的。此外,第一篇文章还揭示,频繁或全面的研究评估往往会导致更大程度的反应性。本文将克利福德等人的分析扩展至对物质使用障碍治疗参与情况的为期一年的随访研究。
设计、参与者和程序与克利福德等人所述相同。治疗数据来自医院记录以及作为时间线追溯访谈一部分的参与者自我报告。
分析揭示了评估频率和评估全面性对治疗参与或介入的若干影响。观察到的反应性效应因因变量而异,这些因变量包括参与者是否接受门诊治疗(综合组中更有可能)、随访期间门诊物质使用障碍治疗的天数(无反应性效应)、参与者在随访期间是否接受物质使用障碍强化治疗(在第1至6个月频繁组中更有可能,但在第7至12个月情况相反,总体而言在简短条件下更有可能)以及随访期间物质使用障碍强化治疗的天数(在第1至6个月频繁组中天数更多,在第7至12个月无频率差异,总体而言简短组天数更多)。进一步分析表明,治疗参与并未介导克利福德等人报告的对饮酒及相关后果的反应性效应。
数据为评估频率和评估全面性与物质滥用治疗参与及介入之间的因果关系提供了实验证据。未来的研究应致力于理解评估过程中决定反应性效应的因素。