School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2012 Sep-Oct;27(5):331-41. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e318262200a.
To examine the relative effectiveness of brief interventions comprising an information booklet with and without a brief motivational interview and an informal discussion in reducing alcohol use following traumatic brain injury.
Sample of 60 participants with traumatic brain injury (mean age = 35 years) with preinjury history of alcohol use.
Randomized controlled trial, using block randomization, stratified for gender.
Following collection of demographic information and alcohol consumption data using the Time Line Follow-Back, participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups (informal discussion, information only, or motivational interview) and given appropriate treatment. Follow-up assessments were completed by an independent researcher 6 months later.
Nonparametric significance testing was used to compare differences in frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption at preintervention (6-9 months postinjury) and follow-up (12-15 months postinjury) sessions. There was a positive trend showing participants in both the intervention groups to be drinking less frequently and consuming fewer alcoholic drinks than those in the informal discussion (control) group. However, group differences did not reach statistical significance.
Further randomized controlled trials with larger samples are needed to establish whether brief educational and motivational interview interventions targeting alcohol use are efficacious in the traumatic brain injury population.
研究包含信息手册和简短动机访谈以及非正式讨论的简短干预措施在减少创伤性脑损伤后饮酒的相对效果。
有创伤性脑损伤史(平均年龄为 35 岁)且有饮酒史的 60 名参与者样本。
随机对照试验,采用块随机化,按性别分层。
在使用时间线回溯收集人口统计学信息和饮酒数据后,参与者被随机分配到 3 个组(非正式讨论、仅信息或动机访谈)之一,并接受相应的治疗。6 个月后由独立研究人员进行随访评估。
非参数显著性检验用于比较干预前(损伤后 6-9 个月)和随访(损伤后 12-15 个月)期间饮酒频率和饮酒量的差异。有一个积极的趋势表明,干预组的参与者饮酒频率和饮酒量均低于非正式讨论(对照组)组的参与者。然而,组间差异没有达到统计学意义。
需要进行更大样本的随机对照试验,以确定针对饮酒行为的简短教育和动机访谈干预措施是否对创伤性脑损伤患者有效。