Polcin Douglas L, Bond Jason, Korcha Rachael, Nayak Madhabika B, Galloway Gantt P, Evans Kristy
a Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute , Emeryville , California , USA.
J Addict Dis. 2014;33(3):253-65. doi: 10.1080/10550887.2014.950029.
An intensive, 9-session motivational interviewing (IMI) intervention was assessed using a randomized clinical trial of 217 methamphetamine (MA) dependent individuals. Intensive motivational interviewing (IMI) was compared with a single standard session of MI (SMI) combined with eight nutrition education sessions. Interventions were delivered weekly over 2 months. All study participants also received standard outpatient group treatment three times per week. Both study groups showed significant decreases in MA use and Addiction Severity Index drug scores, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. However, reductions in Addiction Severity Index psychiatric severity scores and days of psychiatric problems during the past 30 days were found for clients in the IMI group but not the SMI group. SMI may be equally beneficial to IMI in reducing MA use and problem severity, but IMI may help alleviate co-occurring psychiatric problems that are unaffected by shorter MI interventions. Additional studies are needed to assess the problems, populations, and contexts for which IMI is effective.
一项针对217名甲基苯丙胺（MA）依赖个体的随机临床试验，对一种强化的、为期9节的动机性访谈（IMI）干预措施进行了评估。将强化动机性访谈（IMI）与单次标准节段的动机性访谈（SMI）加八节营养教育节段进行了比较。干预措施在2个月内每周进行一次。所有研究参与者还每周接受三次标准门诊小组治疗。两个研究组的MA使用量和成瘾严重程度指数药物得分均显著下降，但两组之间无显著差异。然而，发现IMI组的客户在成瘾严重程度指数精神严重程度得分以及过去30天内的精神问题天数方面有所减少，而SMI组则没有。在减少MA使用和问题严重程度方面，SMI可能与IMI同样有益，但IMI可能有助于缓解较短的动机性访谈干预措施未涉及的并发精神问题。需要进一步的研究来评估IMI有效的问题、人群和背景。
