Computerized versus in-person brief intervention for drug misuse: a randomized clinical trial.
Computerized versus in-person brief intervention for drug misuse: a randomized clinical trial.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/add.12502
复制
发表时间：
2014-07
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
O'Grady KE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schwartz RP;Gryczynski J;Mitchell SG;Gonzales A;Moseley A;Peterson TR;Ondersma SJ;O'Grady KE
几项研究发现，对药物滥用进行短暂干预(BIS)比不进行治疗的对照具有更好的效果。然而，由于行为卫生工作人员能力不足，许多卫生中心没有为药物使用提供持续的BIS。计算机化的药物使用BIS是一种很有前途的方法，但与面对面BIS相比，其有效性尚未确定。这项研究比较了计算机化的短暂干预(CBI)和由行为健康顾问提供的面对面的短暂干预(IBI)的有效性。双臂随机临床试验，在美国新墨西哥州的两个卫生中心进行。参与者是360名在酒精、吸烟和物质参与筛查试验(ASSIST)上有中等风险药物得分的成人初级保健患者，他们按1：1的基础被随机分配到计算机化简短干预(CBI)或由行为健康顾问提供的面对面简短干预(IBI)。评估是在基线和3个月的随访中进行的，包括头发样本的辅助和药物测试。在全球辅助药物得分(b=−1.79；95%CI=−4.37，0.80)或药物阳性毛发测试(OR=0.97；95%CI=0.47，2.02)方面，IBI和CBI条件在3个月内没有差异。在3个月时，在大麻(b=−1.73；95%CI=−2.91，−0.55；科恩的d=.26；p=.004)和可卡因(b=−4.48；95%CI=−8.26，−0.71；科恩的d=0.50；p=.021)方面，脑成像在物质特异性辅助得分方面明显优于IBI。计算机化的简短干预可以有效地替代面对面的简短干预，以解决初级保健中的适度药物使用问题。
Several studies have found that brief interventions (BIs) for drug misuse have superior effectiveness to no-treatment controls. However, many health centers do not provide BIs for drug use consistently due to insufficient behavioral health staff capacity. Computerized BIs for drug use are a promising approach, but their effectiveness compared with in-person BIs has not been established. This study compared the effectiveness of a computerized brief intervention (CBI) to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor. Two-arm randomized clinical trial, conducted in two health centers in New Mexico, USA. Participants were 360 adult primary care patients with moderate-risk drug scores on the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) who were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to a computerized brief intervention (CBI) or to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 3-month follow-up, and included the ASSIST and drug testing on hair samples. The IBI and CBI conditions did not differ at 3 months on global ASSIST drug scores (b=−1.79; 95% CI=−4.37,0.80) or drug-positive hair tests (OR=.97; 95% CI= 0.47,2.02). There was a statistically significant advantage of CBI over IBI in substance-specific ASSIST scores for marijuana (b=−1.73; 95% CI= −2.91,−0.55; Cohen’s d=.26; p=.004) and cocaine (b= −4.48; 95% CI= −8.26,−0.71; Cohen’s d=.50; p=.021) at 3 months. Computerized brief intervention can be an effective alternative to in-person brief intervention for addressing moderate drug use in primary care.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Neighbors, Clayton;LaBrie, Joseph W.;Hummer, Justin F.;Lewis, Melissa A.;Lee, Christine M.;Desai, Sruti;Kilmer, Jason R.;Larimer, Mary E.
通讯作者：
Larimer, Mary E.
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Gonzales A;Westerberg VS;Peterson TR;Moseley A;Gryczynski J;Mitchell SG;Buff G;Schwartz RP
通讯作者：
Schwartz RP
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Gilbert, Paul;Ciccarone, Daniel;Gansky, Stuart A.;Bangsberg, David R.;Clanon, Kathleen;McPhee, Stephen J.;Calderon, Sophia H.;Bogetz, Alyssa;Gerbert, Barbara
通讯作者：
Gerbert, Barbara
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Lewis, Melissa A.;Neighbors, Clayton
通讯作者：
Neighbors, Clayton
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Newcombe, DAL;Humeniuk, RE;Ali, R
通讯作者：
Ali, R