Hides Leanne, Quinn Catherine, Chan Gary, Cotton Susan, Pocuca Nina, Connor Jason P, Witkiewitz Katie, Daglish Mark R C, Young Ross McD, Stoyanov Stoyan, Kavanagh David J
School of Psychology, National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
Addiction. 2021 Mar;116(3):474-484. doi: 10.1111/add.15146. Epub 2020 Aug 3.
Recent meta-analyses of motivational interviewing (MI) for reducing risky alcohol use in young people have reported modest effects. Few studies have targeted individual patient factors to increase MI effectiveness. This study determined if MI enhanced with individualised personality-specific coping skills training (QuikFix) was more efficacious than standard MI or an assessment feedback/information (AF/I) control among young people with alcohol-related injuries or illnesses.
Single-centre, single-blind, three-group superiority randomized controlled trial with 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months follow-ups. Telephone intervention, Brisbane, Australia.
A total of 398 young people (16-25 years; M age = 20.30 years, SD = 2.12; 54% female) with alcohol-related injuries and/or illnesses were recruited from an emergency department (ED) or rest/recovery service (RRS).
The primary outcome was total standard (10 g ethanol) drinks in the past month (Timeline Follow back [TLFB]) at 12 months (primary time point). Secondary outcomes were total drinking days and standard drinks per drinking day (TLFB) in the past month and the frequency of alcohol-related problems in the past 3 months (Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index).
Young people were randomized to two sessions of QuikFix enhanced with individualised personality-specific coping skills training (n = 132), two sessions of MI (n = 136) or one session of AF/I (n = 130), all delivered by telehealth.
QuikFix resulted in greater reductions (all P < 0.0017) in the primary outcome of total standard drinks (M = 19.50, CI 99.75% = [11.31, 27.68]) than both MI (M = 32.61, CI 99.75% = [24.82, 40.40]; Cohen's D = 0.40) and AF/I (M = 34.12, CI 99.75% = [26.59, 41.65]; D = 0.45) at 12 months (retention n = 324/398, 81%). QuikFix had greater reductions on drinking days (M = 3.16, CI 99.75% = [2.37, 3.96]) than both MI (M = 4.53, CI 99.75% = [3.57, 5.48];D = 0.38) and AF/I (M = 4.69, CI 99.75% = [3.73, 5.65];D = 0.42) and fewer drinks per drinking day (M = 5.02, CI 99.75% = [3.71, 6.33]) than AF/I (M = 7.15, CI 99.75% = [5.93, 8.38;D = 0.47) at 12 months.
Young people with alcohol-related injuries and/or illnesses who attended ED and rest/recovery services and received an individualised personality-specific coping skills training intervention (QuikFix) had greater reductions in the amount of alcohol consumed at 12 months compared with those who received motivational interviewing or an assessment feedback/information intervention.
近期关于动机性访谈(MI)减少年轻人危险饮酒行为的荟萃分析显示效果一般。很少有研究针对个体患者因素来提高MI的有效性。本研究确定,对于因酒精相关损伤或疾病就诊的年轻人,结合个性化的特定人格应对技能训练(QuikFix)的MI是否比标准MI或评估反馈/信息(AF/I)对照更有效。
单中心、单盲、三组优越性随机对照试验,随访1、3、6和12个月。电话干预,澳大利亚布里斯班。
从急诊科(ED)或休息/康复服务机构(RRS)招募了398名(16 - 25岁;平均年龄 = 20.30岁,标准差 = 2.12;54%为女性)有酒精相关损伤和/或疾病的年轻人。
主要结局是12个月时(主要时间点)过去一个月的标准饮酒总量(10克乙醇,时间线回溯法[TLFB])。次要结局包括过去一个月的饮酒天数、每日标准饮酒量(TLFB)以及过去3个月酒精相关问题的发生频率(罗格斯酒精问题指数)。
年轻人被随机分为两组,一组接受结合个性化特定人格应对技能训练的两期QuikFix(n = 132),一组接受两期MI(n = 136),另一组接受一期AF/I(n = 130),均通过远程医疗提供。
在12个月时(保留率n = 324/398,81%),QuikFix组在标准饮酒总量这一主要结局上的减少幅度(所有P < 0.0017)大于MI组(平均减少量M = 32.61,99.75%置信区间CI = [24.82, 40.40];科恩d值 = 0.40)和AF/I组(M = 34.12,CI 99.75% = [26.59, 41.65];d值 = 0.45)。QuikFix组在饮酒天数上的减少幅度(M = 3.16,CI 99.75% = [2.37, 3.96])大于MI组(M = 4.53,CI 99.75% = [3.57, 5.48];d值 = 0.38)和AF/I组(M = 4.69,CI 99.75% = [3.73, 5.65];d值 = 0.42),且在12个月时每日饮酒量(M = 5.02,CI 99.75% = [3.71, 6.33])少于AF/I组(M = 7.15,CI 99.75% = [5.93, 8.38];d值 = 0.47)。
因酒精相关损伤和/或疾病就诊于ED和休息/康复服务机构并接受个性化特定人格应对技能训练干预(QuikFix)的年轻人,与接受动机性访谈或评估反馈/信息干预的年轻人相比,在12个月时饮酒量减少幅度更大。