Meta-analysis of medical self-help groups
Meta-analysis of medical self-help groups
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00207284.2000.11490981
复制
发表时间：
2000-01-01
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Anderson, E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barlow, SH;Burlingame, GM;Anderson, E
自助团体（SHG）可能会在下一个世纪的某个时候与所有其他形式的治疗相媲美（参见Goodman & Jacobs在《团体心理治疗手册》中的文章，Wiley，1994年），尽管SHG的“纯粹主义”模型似乎不准确，因为许多专业人士实际上都参与其中。虽然传统形式的团体治疗已经跟上了经验研究的步伐（Fuhriman & Burlingame，“The Handbook of Group Psychotherapy，“1994）SHGs没有。特别是，医疗SHG，通常由医院推广为可行的治疗替代方案，没有系统化的数据库，从中得出结论的整体效果相比，传统的团体治疗。这方面的初步评估提出了使用荟萃分析的文章从1970年至1997年的文献综述中挑选结果表明，虽然治疗后的分析没有产生显着差异的积极和控制条件，治疗前到治疗后的分数表明，SHGs产生更高的患者改善相比，控制条件。未来的研究和使用的医疗SHGs的影响进行了探讨。
Self-help groups (SHGs) may rival all other forms of treatment sometime within the next century (see Goodman & Jacobs article in "The Handbook of Group Psychotherapy," Wiley, 1994), though the "purist" model of SHGs seems inaccurate because many professionals are actually involved. Although traditional forms of group treatment have kept pace with empirical research (Fuhriman & Burlingame, "The Handbook of Group Psychotherapy, " 1994) SHGs have not. In particular, medical SHGs, often promoted by hospitals as viable treatment alternatives, have no systemized database from which to draw conclusions about overall effectiveness compared to traditional group therapies. A preliminary assessment of this area is presented using a meta-analysis of articles culled from a comprehensive review of the literature from 1970 to 1997 Results indicate that although the posttreatment analysis produced no significant differences between active and control conditions, pre to posttreatment scores indicated that SHGs produced higher patient improvement when compared to the control condition. Future implications for research and use of medical SHGs are explored.