Physical Therapy Division, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 29;15(10):e0241434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241434. eCollection 2020.
To systematically review the literature in order to evaluate the effects of health coaching on patients' reduction of opioid usage and opioid discontinuation. In addition, this systematic review investigated the effects of health coaching on pain intensity, physical function, and quality of life.
Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and PsychINFO) were searched from inception to December 2019. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of health coaching interventions in adult patients currently using opioids were included. We considered trials if they included any of the four defined key constructs of health coaching adopted in this review: motivational interviewing, positive psychology, the transtheoretical model, and self-determination theory Independent reviewers screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) and quality of evidence using Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). The review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databased as CRD42019136201. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity between included trials.
Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria (n = 4,516 participants). No study assessed all four constructs of health coaching. All eleven studies utilized only one of the constructs, brief motivational interviewing. Thus, we reported our results in terms of motivational interviewing. There is conflicting and very low quality of evidence that brief motivational interviewing may or may not be more effective than education to reduce opioid usage. There is very low quality of evidence that brief motivational interviewing is more effective than educational monthly diaries to reduce opioid use. There is very low to low quality of evidence that brief motivational interviewing is not more effective than no behavioral intervention to reduce opioid use at 6 months follow-up, treatment as usual (TAU) to improve overdose risk behaviors, and TAU to improve physical and psychological health.
There is no direct evidence related to the effect of health coaching on opioid reduction. There is limited, low quality evidence to conclude brief motivational interviewing reduces opioid usage in opioid-dependent patients. Future research should focus on the impact of high theoretical health coaching interventions on opioid usage.
系统地回顾文献,以评估健康指导对患者减少阿片类药物使用和停止使用阿片类药物的效果。此外,本系统评价还研究了健康指导对疼痛强度、身体功能和生活质量的影响。
从建库到 2019 年 12 月,我们检索了 4 个电子数据库(PubMed、Embase、Scopus 和 PsychINFO)。纳入了评估健康指导干预对目前使用阿片类药物的成年患者影响的随机对照试验。如果试验包括本综述中采用的健康指导的四个定义关键结构中的任何一个,我们将其视为相关试验:动机性访谈、积极心理学、跨理论模型和自我决定理论。独立评审员筛选和选择研究,提取数据,并使用修订后的 Cochrane 随机试验偏倚风险工具(RoB2)评估偏倚风险,使用 Grading、Recommendation、Assessment、Development、and Evaluation(GRADE)评估证据质量。该综述已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)中注册,注册号为 CRD42019136201。由于纳入试验之间存在异质性,因此无法进行荟萃分析。
符合纳入标准的研究有 11 项(n=4516 名参与者)。没有研究评估健康指导的所有四个结构。所有 11 项研究都只使用了其中一种结构,即简短动机性访谈。因此,我们根据简短动机性访谈来报告我们的结果。有相互矛盾的低质量证据表明,简短动机性访谈可能比教育更能有效减少阿片类药物的使用,也可能不比教育更有效。有低到极低质量的证据表明,简短动机性访谈比教育性每月日记更能有效减少阿片类药物的使用。有低到极低质量的证据表明,在 6 个月随访时,简短动机性访谈不比无行为干预更能有效减少阿片类药物的使用,也不比常规治疗(TAU)改善过量风险行为,也不比 TAU 改善身体和心理健康。
没有直接证据表明健康指导对减少阿片类药物的影响。有有限的低质量证据表明,简短动机性访谈可减少阿片类药物依赖患者的阿片类药物使用。未来的研究应侧重于高理论健康指导干预对阿片类药物使用的影响。