D'Amico Elizabeth J, Houck Jon M, Pedersen Eric R, Klein David J, Rodriguez Anthony, Tucker Joan S
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res (Hoboken). 2024 Mar;48(3):556-566. doi: 10.1111/acer.15272. Epub 2024 Feb 27.
There is little research on group process for motivational interviewing-based group interventions with young people. We examine how change talk, group climate and cohesion, and facilitator empathy among emerging adults experiencing homelessness affect their drinking outcomes.
Data come from a clinical trial at three drop-in centers serving emerging adults experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County and focus on those who received the intervention (n = 132). Participants completed baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up surveys. They were predominantly male and non-white. Group sessions were digitally recorded and coded for percentage change talk (PCT), group climate and cohesion, and facilitator empathy.
Because baseline alcohol use was significantly higher at site 1 than sites 2 and 3, we examined associations separately by site. At 6 months, higher PCT was associated with fewer drinks per drinking day for sites 2 and 3, whereas higher PCT was associated with more drinks per drinking day for site 1. There were no effects of PCT at 12 months. Higher group cohesion scores were associated with fewer drinking days at 6 months; higher facilitator empathy was associated with fewer maximum drinks in a day at both 6 and 12 months. Group climate was not associated with drinking outcomes.
These findings highlight the importance of measuring multiple factors in the group process to understand outcomes. What is "uttered" during group and what is observed provide different methods to evaluate the group process and allow us to better bridge the gap between research and practice.
针对基于动机性访谈的青少年群体干预措施的群体过程研究较少。我们研究了无家可归的新兴成年人中的改变谈话、群体氛围与凝聚力以及 facilitator 同理心如何影响他们的饮酒结果。
数据来自洛杉矶县三个为无家可归的新兴成年人提供服务的临时救助中心的一项临床试验,重点关注接受干预的人群(n = 132)。参与者完成了基线、3 个月、6 个月和 12 个月的随访调查。他们主要为男性且非白人。小组会议进行了数字录音,并对改变谈话百分比(PCT)、群体氛围与凝聚力以及 facilitator 同理心进行了编码。
由于地点 1 的基线酒精使用量显著高于地点 2 和 3,我们按地点分别研究了关联。在 6 个月时,较高的 PCT 与地点 2 和 3 中每个饮酒日的饮酒量减少相关,而较高的 PCT 与地点 1 中每个饮酒日的饮酒量增加相关。在 12 个月时,PCT 没有影响。较高的群体凝聚力得分与 6 个月时的饮酒天数减少相关;较高的 facilitator 同理心与 6 个月和 12 个月时一天中的最大饮酒量减少相关。群体氛围与饮酒结果无关。
这些发现凸显了在群体过程中测量多个因素以理解结果的重要性。小组中“所说的话”以及所观察到的情况提供了评估群体过程的不同方法,使我们能够更好地弥合研究与实践之间的差距。