Meta-Analysis of Motivational Interviewing for Adolescent Health Behavior: Efficacy Beyond Substance Use
Meta-Analysis of Motivational Interviewing for Adolescent Health Behavior: Efficacy Beyond Substance Use
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0036912
复制
发表时间：
2014-12-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Leffingwell, Thad R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cushing, Christopher C.;Jensen, Chad D.;Leffingwell, Thad R.
目的：我们试图系统地回顾和Meta分析比较动机访谈(MI)和控制条件对青少年健康行为改变的影响的文献。在这篇文章中，我们只回顾了针对健康行为的研究，而不是物质使用(例如，性危险行为、体力活动、饮食)。方法：应用计算机检索系统文献，检索时间为2013年6月，检索时间为2013年6月。合并数据库，筛选纳入或排除的研究。要纳入本次综述，需要进行以下研究：(A)使用组间设计比较至少一次心肌梗死干预与对照条件的疗效，以及(B)检查青少年中的非物质使用健康行为。15项研究符合纳入标准，并进行了定性和定量描述。结果：使用固定效应模型，我们发现与对照条件相比，MI干预产生了较小但显著的短期干预后效应-g=0.16；95%可信区间(CI)[0.05，0.27]。此外，这一效应在干预后平均33.6周的随访评估中持续存在，n=8，g=.18，95%CI[0.05，.32]。结论：MI对青少年健康行为的干预是有效的。此外，总体效应的大小似乎与仅针对青少年药物使用的干预报告没有显著差异。然而，对于确保干预有效性所需的干预者培训要求，仍存在明显的不明确性。
Objective: We sought to systematically review and meta-analyze the literature comparing motivational interviewing (MI) with a control condition for adolescent health behavior change. In the current article, we reviewed only studies targeting health behaviors other than substance use (e.g., sexual risk behavior, physical activity, diet). Method: Systematic literature searches of PsycINFO, PubMed/Medline, and ERIC were conducted through June 2013. Databases were combined, and studies were screened for inclusion or exclusion. To be included in the current review, studies were required to (a) compare the efficacy of at least 1 session of MI intervention with a control condition using a between-groups design and (b) examine a non-substance-use health behavior in adolescents. Fifteen studies met criteria for inclusion and were described qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: Using a fixed-effects model, we found that MI interventions produced a small, but significant, aggregate effect size for short-term postintervention effects-g = .16; 95% confidence interval (CI) [.05, .27]-compared with control conditions. Moreover, this effect was sustained at follow-up assessments averaging 33.6 weeks postintervention, n = 8, g = .18, 95% CI [.05, .32]. Conclusions: MI interventions for adolescent health behavior appear to be effective. In addition, the magnitude of the aggregate effect size does not appear to differ meaningfully from reports of interventions targeting only substance use in adolescents. However, significant lack of clarity exists regarding interventionist training requirements necessary to ensure intervention effectiveness.