Randomized Controlled Trial of Motivational Enhancement Therapy With Nontreatment-Seeking Adolescent Cannabis Users: A Further Test of the Teen Marijuana Check-Up
Randomized Controlled Trial of Motivational Enhancement Therapy With Nontreatment-Seeking Adolescent Cannabis Users: A Further Test of the Teen Marijuana Check-Up
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0024076
复制
发表时间：
2011-09-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Berg, Belinda
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Walker, Denise D.;Stephens, Robert;Berg, Belinda
大麻的使用对青少年产生不利影响，需要采取对青少年有吸引力的干预措施。该试验将大麻使用的简短动机干预与简短教育反馈控制和无评估控制的效果进行了比较。参与者被随机分配到三种治疗条件之一：动机增强疗法（MET）、教育反馈控制（EFC）或延迟反馈控制（DFC）。那些被分配到 MET 和 EFC 的患者在随机分组后立即接受计算机化基线评估，并在 3 个月和 12 个月的随访期完成评估。 DFC 状况的参与者直到 3 个月的随访后才接受评估。治疗结束后，所有参与者都接受了最多四次可选的个人治疗，旨在停止使用大麻。这项研究是在华盛顿州西雅图的高中进行的。参与者包括 310 名经常吸食大麻的自我推荐青少年。主要结果指标包括使用大麻的天数、相关的负面后果以及接受额外治疗。在 3 个月的随访中，与 DFC 条件下的参与者相比，MET 和 EFC 条件下的参与者报告的大麻使用天数和负面后果明显减少。 3 个月时，MET 中大麻的使用频率低于 EFC，但这并没有转化为负面后果的差异。使用和问题的减少持续到 12 个月，但 MET 和 EFC 干预之间没有差异。参与额外治疗的人数很少，并且没有因病情而异。简短的干预措施可以吸引青少年大麻使用者并对他们产生积极影响，但其影响机制尚未确定。
Cannabis use adversely affects adolescents and interventions that are attractive to adolescents are needed. This trial compared the effects of a brief motivational intervention for cannabis use with a brief educational feedback control and a no-assessment control. Participants were randomized into one of three treatment conditions: Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET), Educational Feedback Control (EFC), or Delayed Feedback Control (DFC). Those who were assigned to MET and EFC were administered a computerized baseline assessment immediately following randomization and completed assessments at the 3- and 12-month follow-up periods. Participants in the DFC condition were not assessed until the 3-month follow-up. Following the completion of treatment sessions, all participants were offered up to four optional individual treatment sessions aimed at cessation of cannabis use. The research was conducted in high schools in Seattle, Washington. The participant s included 310 self-referred adolescents who smoked cannabis regularly. The main outcome measures included days of cannabis use, associated negative consequences, and engagement in additional treatment. At the 3-month follow-up, participants in both the MET and EFC conditions reported significantly fewer days of cannabis use and negative consequences compared to those in the DFC. The frequency of cannabis use was less in MET relative to EFC at 3 months, but it did not translate to differences in negative consequences. Reductions in use and problems were sustained at 12 months, but there were no differences between MET and EFC interventions. Engagement in additional treatment was minimal and did not differ by condition. Brief interventions can attract adolescent cannabis users and have positive impacts on them, but the mechanisms of the effects are yet to be identified.