Telch M J, Hannon R, Telch C F
Addict Behav. 1984;9(1):103-9. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(84)90014-5.
The present study compared the relative effectiveness of group-administered covert sensitization, supportive group therapy, and a non-specific control in disrupting the drinking response of 28 outpatient alcoholics. Multiple measures of treatment outcome were examined to insure a more comprehensive assessment of treatment effects. These included (a) randomly sampled blood/alcohol levels, (b) reported mean daily drinking frequencies and (c) reported urges to drink. Results indicated that supportive group therapy was significantly more effective than the other two treatments in reducing subjects' reported daily drinking. No significant differences were found on measures of blood/alcohol concentration or subjects' ratings of frequency of urges to drink. All three groups reported significant improvement over time on urge ratings. Results seriously question the efficacy of covert sensitization in helping outpatient alcoholics reduce their intake of alcohol.
本研究比较了团体实施的隐蔽致敏疗法、支持性团体治疗和非特异性对照在中断28名门诊酗酒者饮酒反应方面的相对有效性。研究检查了多种治疗结果指标，以确保对治疗效果进行更全面的评估。这些指标包括：（a）随机抽取的血液/酒精水平；（b）报告的平均每日饮酒频率；以及（c）报告的饮酒冲动。结果表明，在减少受试者报告的每日饮酒量方面，支持性团体治疗比其他两种治疗方法显著更有效。在血液/酒精浓度指标或受试者对饮酒冲动频率的评分上未发现显著差异。随着时间的推移，所有三组在冲动评分上均报告有显著改善。结果严重质疑了隐蔽致敏疗法在帮助门诊酗酒者减少酒精摄入量方面的疗效。
