Suppr超能文献

动机性访谈培训在物质使用治疗专业人员中的应用:一项系统综述。

Motivational interviewing training of substance use treatment professionals: A systematic review.

机构信息

a Department of Psychology , The University of Southern Mississippi , Hattiesburg , Mississippi, USA.

b Center on Alcoholism , Substance Abuse, and Addictions, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

出版信息

Subst Abus. 2019;40(1):43-51. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2018.1475319. Epub 2018 Oct 9.

Abstract

Through evaluations of training programs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, advances in identifying best practices for disseminating motivational interviewing (MI) have emerged. To advance this work further, inclusion of thorough descriptions of the following is needed in research publications: study (design, trainee characteristics, setting characteristics), training and coaching methods (if applicable), trainer qualifications, and evaluation of MI skills. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the research on MI training of substance use treatment professionals for the inclusion of such descriptions. Twenty-five studies were reviewed using a scoring rubric developed by the authors. Just over two thirds of the studies (68%) were randomized controlled trials of MI training. The majority of studies provided information about (a) trainee characteristics (professional background = 76%, education = 60%, experience = 56%); (b) setting characteristics (80%); (c) training methods (format = 96%, length = 92%); (d) coaching (76%); and (e) evaluation of MI skills (92%). Findings suggest advancements in MI training studies since previous reviews, especially in regards to the inclusion of feedback and coaching. However, this review also found that inconsistencies in methods and reporting of training characteristics, as well as limited follow-up assessment of trainees' skill, continue to limit knowledge of effective training methods.

摘要

通过培训计划评估、系统评价和荟萃分析,在确定传播动机性访谈(MI)最佳实践方面取得了进展。为了进一步推进这项工作,研究出版物中需要包括以下内容的详细描述:研究(设计、学员特征、设置特征)、培训和辅导方法(如果适用)、培训师资格以及 MI 技能评估。本研究旨在系统评估 MI 培训的研究,以纳入此类描述。使用作者制定的评分标准对 25 项研究进行了回顾。只有超过三分之二的研究(68%)是 MI 培训的随机对照试验。大多数研究提供了关于(a)学员特征(专业背景=76%,教育=60%,经验=56%);(b)设置特征(80%);(c)培训方法(格式=96%,长度=92%);(d)辅导(76%);和(e)MI 技能评估(92%)的信息。研究结果表明,MI 培训研究取得了进展,尤其是在反馈和辅导方面。然而,本回顾还发现,培训特征的方法和报告不一致,以及对学员技能的有限后续评估,继续限制了对有效培训方法的了解。

相似文献

6
Results From 10 Years of Interprofessional Training on Motivational Interviewing.10年动机性访谈跨专业培训的结果
Eval Health Prof. 2017 Jun;40(2):159-179. doi: 10.1177/0163278716656229. Epub 2016 Jun 29.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

9
Training in vain?徒劳的训练?
Addiction. 2016 Jul;111(7):1153-4. doi: 10.1111/add.13175. Epub 2016 Feb 29.
10
Asking better questions about clinical skills training.提出关于临床技能培训的更好问题。
Addiction. 2016 Jul;111(7):1151-2. doi: 10.1111/add.13095. Epub 2016 Feb 29.

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