Reid Allecia E, Carey Kate B
Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, United States; Colby College, Department of Psychology, United States; Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, United States.
Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, United States; Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, United States.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2015 Aug;40:213-24. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.006. Epub 2015 Jun 24.
Interventions to reduce college student drinking, although efficacious, generally yield only small effects on behavior change. Examining mechanisms of change may help to improve the magnitude of intervention effects by identifying effective and ineffective active ingredients. Informed by guidelines for establishing mechanisms of change, we conducted a systematic review of alcohol interventions for college students to identify (a) which constructs have been examined and received support as mediators, (b) circumstances that enhance the likelihood of detecting mediation, and (c) the extent of evidence for mechanisms of change. We identified 61 trials that examined 22 potential mediators of intervention efficacy. Descriptive norms consistently mediated normative feedback interventions. Motivation to change consistently failed to mediate motivational interviewing interventions. Multiple active ingredient interventions were not substantially more likely to find evidence of mediation than single ingredient interventions. Delivering intervention content remotely reduced likelihood of finding support for mediation. With the exception of descriptive norms, there is inadequate evidence for the psychosocial constructs purported as mechanisms of change in the college drinking literature. Evidence for mechanisms will be yielded by future studies that map all active ingredients to targeted psychosocial outcomes and that assess potential mediators early, inclusively, and at appropriate intervals following interventions.
减少大学生饮酒的干预措施虽然有效,但通常对行为改变的影响很小。研究改变机制可能有助于通过识别有效和无效的活性成分来提高干预效果的程度。根据建立改变机制的指导方针,我们对大学生酒精干预措施进行了系统综述,以确定:(a)哪些构念已被检验并作为中介得到支持;(b)增加检测中介可能性的情况;(c)改变机制的证据程度。我们确定了61项试验,这些试验检验了22种潜在的干预效果中介因素。描述性规范始终介导规范性反馈干预。改变动机始终未能介导动机访谈干预。多种活性成分干预措施找到中介证据的可能性并不比单一成分干预措施大得多。远程提供干预内容降低了找到中介支持的可能性。除了描述性规范外,在大学饮酒文献中声称作为改变机制的心理社会构念方面,证据不足。未来的研究将绘制所有活性成分与目标心理社会结果的关系,并在干预后早期、全面且以适当的间隔评估潜在中介因素,从而得出改变机制的证据。