Alcohol Treatment Center, Department of Community Health and Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital , Lausanne , Switzerland.
Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , London , UK.
Front Psychiatry. 2014 Aug 26;5:108. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00108. eCollection 2014.
A growing body of evidence has shown the efficacy of brief intervention (BI) for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary health care settings. Evidence for efficacy in other settings and effectiveness when implemented at larger scale are disappointing. Indeed, BI comprises varying content; exploring BI content and mechanisms of action may be a promising way to enhance efficacy and effectiveness. Medline and PsychInfo, as well as references of retrieved publications were searched for original research or review on active ingredients (components or mechanisms) of face-to-face BIs [and its subtypes, including brief advice and brief motivational interviewing (BMI)] for alcohol. Overall, BI active ingredients have been scarcely investigated, almost only within BMI, and mostly among patients in the emergency room, young adults, and US college students. This body of research has shown that personalized feedback may be an effective component; specific MI techniques showed mixed findings; decisional balance findings tended to suggest a potential detrimental effect; while change plan exercises, advice to reduce or stop drinking, presenting alternative change options, and moderation strategies are promising but need further study. Client change talk is a potential mediator of BMI effects; change in norm perceptions and enhanced discrepancy between current behavior and broader life goals and values have received preliminary support; readiness to change was only partially supported as a mediator; while enhanced awareness of drinking, perceived risks/benefits of alcohol use, alcohol treatment seeking, and self-efficacy were seldom studied and have as yet found no significant support as such. Research is obviously limited and has provided no clear and consistent evidence on the mechanisms of alcohol BI. How BI achieves the effects seen in randomized trials remains mostly unknown and should be investigated to inform the development of more effective interventions.
越来越多的证据表明,在初级保健环境中,简短干预(BI)对有害和危险的酒精使用是有效的。在其他环境中以及在更大规模实施时的有效性证据令人失望。事实上,BI 包含不同的内容;探索 BI 的内容和作用机制可能是提高疗效和有效性的一种有前途的方法。我们在 Medline 和 PsychInfo 上以及检索到的出版物的参考文献中搜索了有关面对面 BI 的有效成分(成分或机制)[及其亚型,包括简短建议和简短动机访谈(BMI)]的原始研究或综述,用于治疗酒精问题。总体而言,BI 的有效成分几乎没有得到研究,几乎仅在 BMI 中进行,并且主要针对急诊室、年轻人和美国大学生中的患者。这部分研究表明,个性化反馈可能是一个有效的组成部分;特定的 MI 技术的发现喜忧参半;决策平衡的发现倾向于表明潜在的不利影响;而改变计划练习、减少或停止饮酒的建议、提出替代改变方案和适度策略是有希望的,但需要进一步研究。客户改变谈话是 BMI 效果的潜在中介;规范认知的改变以及当前行为与更广泛的生活目标和价值观之间的差异的增强得到了初步支持;改变的准备仅部分支持作为中介;而增强对饮酒的认识、对饮酒的风险/益处的感知、寻求酒精治疗和自我效能感的研究很少,而且迄今为止没有得到这样的支持。研究显然是有限的,并没有提供关于 BI 治疗酒精问题的机制的明确和一致的证据。BI 如何实现随机试验中看到的效果在很大程度上仍然未知,应该进行调查,为开发更有效的干预措施提供信息。