Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review.
Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/bjhp.12227
复制
发表时间：
2017-05
影响因子：
7.9
通讯作者：
McGrath N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Arden-Close E;McGrath N
伴侣对个人健康有重大影响，夫妻健康行为的一致性随着时间的推移而增加。一些理论表明，以夫妻为重点的健康行为改变干预可能因此比个人干预更有效。对夫妻健康行为改变干预措施进行了系统审查。系统检索方法确定了1990年至2014年发表的随机对照试验（rct）和非随机干预措施，这些试验对至少有一方有慢性身体疾病风险的夫妇的健康行为改变进行了研究。我们确定了14项研究，针对以下健康行为：癌症预防(6)，肥胖(1)，饮食(2)，怀孕期间吸烟(2)，体育活动(1)和多种健康行为(2)。在七项试验中，有四项以夫妻为中心的干预措施比常规护理更有效。在比较以夫妇为中心的干预与个人干预的四项随机对照试验中，有两项发现以夫妇为中心的干预更有效。这些研究是异质的，包括有各种疾病风险的参与者。在许多情况下，将干预措施与个人的常规护理或以个人为中心的干预措施进行比较，这意味着不能将基于夫妻的内容的影响隔离开来。三组研究可以确定以夫妻为中心的干预措施的任何额外益处是由于增加了伴侣还是夫妻为中心的干预措施的特定内容。关于这个问题我们已经知道了什么？夫妻之间的健康行为和健康行为改变往往比一般人群中的个人之间更为一致。针对慢性疾病的夫妻干预比个人干预或常规护理更有效（Martire, Schulz, Helgeson, Small, & Saghafi, 2010）。这项研究补充了什么？已确定的研究针对各种健康行为，在任何一个领域的研究很少。需要进一步评估夫妻干预与个人干预对高危人群的有效性。需要三组研究设计来确定针对夫妇和针对夫妇的干预内容的益处。
Partners are a significant influence on individuals’ health, and concordance in health behaviours increases over time in couples. Several theories suggest that couple‐focused interventions for health behaviour change may therefore be more effective than individual interventions. A systematic review of health behaviour change interventions for couples was conducted. Systematic search methods identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomized interventions of health behaviour change for couples with at least one member at risk of a chronic physical illness, published from 1990–2014. We identified 14 studies, targeting the following health behaviours: cancer prevention (6), obesity (1), diet (2), smoking in pregnancy (2), physical activity (1) and multiple health behaviours (2). In four out of seven trials couple‐focused interventions were more effective than usual care. Of four RCTs comparing a couple‐focused intervention to an individual intervention, two found that the couple‐focused intervention was more effective. The studies were heterogeneous, and included participants at risk of a variety of illnesses. In many cases the intervention was compared to usual care for an individual or an individual‐focused intervention, which meant the impact of the couplebased content could not be isolated. Three arm studies could determine whether any added benefits of couple‐focused interventions are due to adding the partner or specific content of couple‐focused interventions. What is already known on this subject? Health behaviours and health behaviour change are more often concordant across couples than between individuals in the general population. Couple‐focused interventions for chronic conditions are more effective than individual interventions or usual care (Martire, Schulz, Helgeson, Small, & Saghafi, 2010). What does this study add? Identified studies targeted a variety of health behaviours, with few studies in any one area. Further assessment of the effectiveness of couple‐focused versus individual interventions for those at risk is needed. Three‐arm study designs are needed to determine benefits of targeting couples versus couple‐focused intervention content.