The efficacy of motivational interviewing: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials
The efficacy of motivational interviewing: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0022-006x.71.5.843
复制
发表时间：
2003-10-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Menchola, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burke, BL;Arkowitz, H;Menchola, M
对临床对照试验进行了荟萃分析，调查了动机访谈(Amis)的适应性，这是一种有前途的治疗问题行为的方法。对于涉及酒精、药物、饮食和锻炼的问题，与不治疗和/或安慰剂相比，急性心肌梗死与其他积极的治疗方法相同，产生的效果适中(从0.25到0.57)。结果不支持急性心肌梗死对吸烟或艾滋病毒危险行为的疗效。急性心肌梗死表现出临床影响，51%的改善率，56%的客户饮酒减少，社会影响措施的影响程度适中(d=0.47)。通过同质性分析和探索性多元回归分析确定潜在的调节因素(相对剂量、急性心肌梗死形式和问题区域)。将研究结果与其他综述结果进行了比较，并对今后的研究提出了建议。
A meta-analysis was conducted on controlled clinical trials investigating adaptations of motivational interviewing (AMIs), a promising approach to treating problem behaviors. AMIs were equivalent to other active treatments and yielded moderate effects (from .25 to .57) compared with no treatment and/or placebo for problems involving alcohol, drugs, and diet and exercise. Results did not support the efficacy of AMIs for smoking or HIV-risk behaviors. AMIs showed clinical impact, with 51% improvement rates, a 56% reduction in client drinking, and moderate effect sizes on social impact measures (d = 0.47). Potential moderators (comparative dose, AMI format, and problem area) were identified using both homogeneity analyses and exploratory multiple regression. Results are compared with other review results and suggestions for future research are offered.