From the Department of Psychology, University of Scranton (JCN, NCF), Scranton, PA; Dean's Office, Simmons College (GPK), Boston, MA; and National Development and Research Institutes (HKW), New York, NY.
J Addict Med. 2010 Sep;4(3):174-80. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0b013e3181c5f9db.
Evidence-based practice promotes those research-supported treatments that have proven effective, but it rarely identifies discredited treatments that are to be avoided. We sought to establish a professional consensus on discredited addiction treatments using Delphi methodology. A panel of 75 experts participated in a 2-stage study, reporting familiarity with 65 treatments and rating these on a continuum from "not at all discredited" to "certainly discredited." We report their composite opinions and significant differences that occurred as a function of the panelists' theoretical orientation. The results require careful interpretation, but do offer a cogent first step in identifying a professional consensus of discredited treatments for addictions.
循证实践促进那些经过研究证实有效的治疗方法，但很少能识别出应避免使用的已被否定的治疗方法。我们使用德尔菲法寻求就已被否定的成瘾治疗方法达成专业共识。一个由 75 名专家组成的小组参加了 2 个阶段的研究，报告了对 65 种治疗方法的熟悉程度，并对这些治疗方法在从“完全不被否定”到“肯定被否定”的连续体上进行了评级。我们报告了他们的综合意见以及由于小组成员的理论取向不同而产生的显著差异。结果需要仔细解释，但确实为确定成瘾治疗中已被否定的治疗方法的专业共识提供了一个有力的第一步。
