Suppr超能文献

动机性访谈对减少注射吸毒者注射风险行为的随机对照试验。

Randomized controlled trial of motivational interviewing for reducing injection risk behaviours among people who inject drugs.

作者信息

Bertrand Karine, Roy Élise, Vaillancourt Éric, Vandermeerschen Jill, Berbiche Djamal, Boivin Jean-François

机构信息

University of Sherbrooke, Department of Community Health Sciences, Addiction Research Study Program, Longueuil, Québec, Canada; Charles-LeMoyne Hospital Research Centre, Longueuil, Québec, Canada.

出版信息

Addiction. 2015 May;110(5):832-41. doi: 10.1111/add.12867. Epub 2015 Mar 17.

Abstract

AIM

We tested the efficacy of a brief intervention based on motivational interviewing (MI) to reduce high-risk injection behaviours over a 6-month period among people who inject drugs (PWID).

DESIGN

A single-site two-group parallel randomized controlled trial comparing MI with a brief educational intervention (EI).

SETTING

A study office located in downtown Montréal, Canada, close to the community-based harm reduction programmes where PWID were recruited.

PARTICIPANTS

PWID who had shared drug injection equipment or shared drugs by backloading or frontloading in the month prior to recruitment were randomized to either the MI (112) or EI (109) groups.

INTERVENTION

The MI aimed to (1) encourage PWID to voice their desires, needs and reasons to change behaviours; (2) boost motivation to change behaviours; and (3) when the person was ready, support the plan he or she chose to reduce injection risk behaviours. The EI consisted of an individual session about safe injection behaviours.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was defined as having any of these risk behaviours at 6 months: having shared syringes, containers, filters or water to inject drugs in the previous month and backloading/frontloading; each behaviour was examined separately, as secondary outcomes.

FINDINGS

The probability of reporting a risk injection behaviour decreased in both the MI and the EI groups. At 6-month follow-up, participants who reported any risk behaviours were 50% [odds ratio (OR) = 0.50; confidence interval (CI) = 0.13-0.87] less likely to be in the MI group than in the EI group as well as those who reported sharing containers (OR = 0.50; CI = 0.09-0.90). PWID who reported sharing equipment excluding syringes were 53% less likely to be in the MI group (OR = 0.47; CI = 0.11-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

A brief motivational interviewing intervention was more effective than a brief educational intervention in reducing some high risk injecting behaviours up in the subsequent 6 months.

摘要

目的

我们测试了基于动机性访谈(MI)的简短干预措施在6个月内减少注射毒品者(PWID)高风险注射行为的效果。

设计

一项单中心两组平行随机对照试验,将MI与简短教育干预(EI)进行比较。

地点

位于加拿大蒙特利尔市中心的一个研究办公室,靠近招募PWID的社区减少伤害项目。

参与者

在招募前一个月内曾共享过毒品注射设备或通过回注或预注方式共享过毒品的PWID被随机分为MI组(112人)或EI组(109人)。

干预措施

MI旨在(1)鼓励PWID说出他们改变行为的愿望、需求和原因;(2)增强改变行为的动机;(3)当个体准备好时,支持其选择的降低注射风险行为的计划。EI包括一次关于安全注射行为的个体辅导。

测量指标

主要结局定义为在6个月时出现以下任何一种风险行为:在前一个月内共享过注射器、容器、过滤器或用于注射毒品的水以及回注/预注;每种行为分别作为次要结局进行检查。

研究结果

MI组和EI组报告风险注射行为的概率均有所降低。在6个月随访时,报告有任何风险行为的参与者中,MI组的可能性比EI组以及报告共享容器的参与者低50%[比值比(OR)=0.50;置信区间(CI)=0.13 - 0.87]。报告共享除注射器外设备的PWID在MI组中的可能性低53%(OR = 0.47;CI = 0.11 - 0.84)。

结论

在随后的6个月内,简短的动机性访谈干预在减少某些高风险注射行为方面比简短教育干预更有效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验