Jelsma Judith G M, Mertens Vera-Christina, Forsberg Lisa, Forsberg Lars
Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Jul;43:93-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.05.001. Epub 2015 May 9.
Many randomized controlled trials in which motivational interviewing (MI) is a key intervention make no provision for the assessment of treatment fidelity. This methodological shortcoming makes it impossible to distinguish between high- and low-quality MI interventions, and, consequently, to know whether MI provision has contributed to any intervention effects. This article makes some practical recommendations for the collection, selection, coding and reporting of MI fidelity data, as measured using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Code. We hope that researchers will consider these recommendations and include MI fidelity measures in future studies.
许多以动机性访谈（MI）作为关键干预措施的随机对照试验并未对治疗保真度评估作出规定。这一方法学上的缺陷使得无法区分高质量和低质量的MI干预措施，进而无法知晓实施MI是否对任何干预效果有所贡献。本文针对使用动机性访谈治疗完整性编码所测量的MI保真度数据的收集、选择、编码和报告提出了一些实用建议。我们希望研究人员会考虑这些建议，并在未来的研究中纳入MI保真度测量。
