Charles Morten, Bruun Niels Henrik, Simmons Rebecca, Dalsgaard Else-Marie, Witte Daniel, Jorgensen Marit, Christensen Bo, Maindal Helle Terkildsen, Rubak Sune, Sandbaek Annelli, Lauritzen Torsten
Senior Researcher, Department of Public Health, Research Group for General Practice, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
Senior Biostatistician, Department of Public Health, Research Group for General Practice, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark.
BJGP Open. 2020 May 1;4(1). doi: 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101012. Print 2020.
There is no long-term evidence on the effectiveness of training for motivational interviewing in diabetes treatment.
Within a trial of intensive treatment of people with screen-detected diabetes, which included training in motivational interviewing for GPs, the study examined the effect of the intervention on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality.
DESIGN & SETTING: In the ADDITION-Denmark trial, 181 general practices were cluster randomised in a 2:1:1 ratio to: (i) to screening plus routine care of individuals with screen-detected diabetes (control group); (ii) screening plus training and support in intensive multifactorial treatment of individuals with screen-detected diabetes (intensive treatment group); or (iii) screening plus training and support in intensive multifactorial treatment and motivational interviewing for individuals with screen-detected diabetes (intensive treatment plus motivational interviewing group). The study took place from 2001-2009.
After around 8 years follow-up, rates of first fatal and non-fatal CVD events and all-cause mortality were compared between screen-detected individuals in the three treatment groups.
Compared with the routine care group, the risk of CVD was similar in the intensive treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.50) and the intensive treatment plus motivational interviewing group (HR 1.26, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.64). The incidence of death was similar in all three treatment groups.
Training of GPs in intensive multifactorial treatment, with or without motivational interviewing, was not associated with a reduction in mortality or CVD among those with screen-detected diabetes.
关于动机性访谈培训在糖尿病治疗中的有效性,尚无长期证据。
在一项针对筛查发现的糖尿病患者强化治疗的试验中,该试验包括对全科医生进行动机性访谈培训,研究该干预措施对心血管疾病(CVD)事件和全因死亡率的影响。
在丹麦ADDITION试验中,181家全科诊所按2:1:1的比例进行整群随机分组,分为:(i)对筛查发现的糖尿病患者进行筛查加常规护理(对照组);(ii)对筛查发现的糖尿病患者进行筛查加强化多因素治疗的培训与支持(强化治疗组);或(iii)对筛查发现的糖尿病患者进行筛查加强化多因素治疗及动机性访谈的培训与支持(强化治疗加动机性访谈组)。该研究于2001年至2009年进行。
经过约8年的随访,比较了三个治疗组中筛查发现的个体首次发生致命和非致命CVD事件的发生率以及全因死亡率。
与常规护理组相比,强化治疗组(风险比[HR] 1.11,95%置信区间[CI] = 0.82至1.50)和强化治疗加动机性访谈组(HR 1.26,95% CI = 0.96至1.64)的CVD风险相似。三个治疗组的死亡发生率相似。
对全科医生进行强化多因素治疗培训,无论是否进行动机性访谈,均与筛查发现的糖尿病患者的死亡率或CVD降低无关。