Single-Session Alcohol Interventions for Heavy Drinking College Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Single-Session Alcohol Interventions for Heavy Drinking College Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
复制标题
DOI：
10.15288/jsad.2015.76.530
复制
发表时间：
2015-06
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
J. Samson;E. Tanner-Smith
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Samson;E. Tanner-Smith
目的：本研究的目的是进行一项荟萃分析，总结简短的，单一的会议干预措施，以减少大量饮酒的大学生饮酒的有效性。方法：一项全面的文献检索确定了73项研究，比较了单次短暂酒精干预与常规治疗或无治疗控制条件对重度饮酒大学生酒精使用的影响。使用具有稳健方差估计的随机效应荟萃分析来合成662个效应量，估计干预措施的平均总体效应和一系列调节剂效应的变异性。结果总体平均效应量= 0.18，95%CI [0.12，0.24]表明，平均而言，单次短暂酒精干预显著减少了大量饮酒大学生的酒精使用。与研究方法和质量、一般研究特征、受试者人口统计学或结局指标类型相关的效应变异性最小。然而，使用动机增强疗法/动机访谈（MET/MI）模式的研究报告比使用心理教育疗法（PET）干预措施的效果更大。进一步的调查显示，使用MET/ MI和仅反馈干预的研究，而不是使用认知行为疗法或PET模式的研究，报告的平均效应量与零显著不同。还有证据表明，长期影响比短期影响弱。结论：单次简短的酒精干预对减少大量饮酒的大学生的酒精消费量有一定的影响，当他们结合MET/MI原则时可能特别有效。需要更多的研究来直接比较干预方式，开发更有效的干预措施，并探索长期影响的持久性。
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis summarizing the effectiveness of brief, single-session interventions to reduce alcohol use among heavy drinking college students. METHOD A comprehensive literature search identified 73 studies comparing the effects of single-session brief alcohol intervention with treatment-as-usual or no-treatment control conditions on alcohol use among heavy drinking college students. Random-effects meta-analyses with robust variance estimates were used to synthesize 662 effect sizes, estimating the average overall effect of the interventions and the variability in effects across a range of moderators. RESULTS An overall mean effect size of ḡ = 0.18, 95% CI [0.12, 0.24] indicated that, on average, single-session brief alcohol interventions significantly reduced alcohol use among heavy drinking college students relative to comparison conditions. There was minimal variability in effects associated with study method and quality, general study characteristics, participant demographics, or outcome measure type. However, studies using motivational enhancement therapy/motivational interviewing (MET/MI) modalities reported larger effects than those using psychoeducational therapy (PET) interventions. Further investigation revealed that studies using MET/ MI and feedback-only interventions, but not those using cognitive-behavioral therapy or PET modalities, reported average effect sizes that differed significantly from zero. There was also evidence that long-term effects were weaker than short-term effects. CONCLUSIONS Single-session brief alcohol interventions show modest effects for reducing alcohol consumption among heavy drinking college students and may be particularly effective when they incorporate MET/MI principles. More research is needed to directly compare intervention modalities, to develop more potent interventions, and to explore the persistence of long-term effects.