Brief interventions: good in theory but weak in practice
Brief interventions: good in theory but weak in practice
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/09595230410001645510
复制
发表时间：
2004-03-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Freeman, T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Roche, AM;Freeman, T
已经积累了大量的研究证据，支持对一些与酒精和毒品有关的问题领域，特别是酒精和烟草，采取简短干预措施的有效性。这一证据已被用来证明一系列专业团体，如全科医生（GP），最近急诊科医院工作人员从事简短的干预。然而，在国际上，这些二级预防努力基本上失败了。为什么这些行之有效的干预措施没有被一线工作人员接受？这是一个很少有人问的问题，因为迫使不情愿的专业人士拿起棍棒的努力仍在继续。本文探讨了简短的干预措施的特点和他们的主要交付代理人，并探讨了未能从功效走向有效性的原因。鉴于短期干预具有预防潜力，这些都是需要解决的关键问题。简短的干预交付的一个关键特征也检查是全科医生的作用与实践护士的探索较少的选择。有人会提出，也许我们的车是对的，但司机是错的，除非对这一问题进行更仔细的审查，否则这一关键预防领域的努力将继续无法取得最佳结果。
A substantial body of research evidence has accumulated in support of the efficacy of brief interventions for a number of alcohol and drug-related problem areas, most notably alcohol and tobacco. This evidence has been used to exhort a range of professional groups such as general practitioners (GPs), and more recently emergency department hospital staff to engage in brief interventions. Internationally, however, these secondary prevention efforts have largely failed. Why have these proven interventions not been embraced by frontline workers? This is a little-asked question as efforts to press-gang unwilling professionals to take up the cudgel continue. This paper examines the characteristics of brief interventions and their principal delivery agents and explores reasons for the failure to move from efficacy to effectiveness. Given the prevention potential that rests with brief intervention, these are crucial questions to address. A key feature of brief intervention delivery also examined is the role of GPs versus the less well-explored option of the practice nurse. It will be proposed that perhaps we have the right vehicle but the wrong driver and that until closer scrutiny is made of this issue efforts in this key prevention area will continue to fail to achieve optimum results.