Evidence-based Principles of Treatment

描述（由申请人提供）： NIDA确定了有效治疗药物滥用者的原则，“Andrews小组”确定了有效康复矫正治疗的原则。虽然有个别的研究，以支持NIDA确定的药物滥用者的原则，并有元分析研究的安德鲁斯集团矫正为基础的治疗，没有系统的审查或荟萃分析的全部研究文献进行了验证药物滥用者的有效治疗的原则。在以前的研究中，NDRI和ISAP的研究团队开发了两个荟萃分析数据库，其中包含数百项药物滥用者治疗的主要研究，这些数据库包含可用于测试9项治疗原则的变量：NIDA 13项原则中的6项和Andrews小组的所有3项原则。本研究的主要目的是对这九项原则进行方法学上的强有力的检验。所采用的方法是对现有NDRI和ISAP荟萃分析数据库进行系统综述和荟萃分析，并将其扩展到包括为本项目收集的最新研究。估计共有700项治疗有效性研究可用于荟萃分析。第二个目的是加强元分析技术和提高方法质量，方法是：（a）查明对同一主题进行的元分析中不一致的来源，并建议改进方案;（B）调整和验证主要研究方法质量的改进措施;（c）评价处理缺失数据的不同方法的使用情况。该项目对实践有影响，因为它将为研究人员和从业人员提供更多的知识：（1）哪些治疗原则确实有效地改善客户结果，可能在特定的调节因素下（例如，（2）使用当前协议的荟萃分析的科学实力和局限性，以及如何改进这种基本方法。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): NIDA has identified principles of effective treatment for substance abusers and the "Andrews Group" has identified principles of effective rehabilitative correctional treatment. Although there are individual studies to support the principles identified by NIDA for substance abusers and there are meta-analytic studies by the Andrews group on corrections-based treatment, no systematic review or meta-analysis of the full research literature has been conducted to verify principles of effective treatment for substance abusers. In previous studies, the research teams from NDRI and ISAP developed two meta-analytic databases containing hundreds of primary research studies of treatment for substance abusers, and these databases contain variables that can be used to test nine of the principles of treatment: six of the thirteen NIDA principles and all three of the Andrews group's principles. The primary aim of this study is to conduct a methodologically strong test of these nine principles. The method employed is systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the existing NDRI and ISAP meta-analytic databases, expanded to include recent studies to be collected for this project. An estimated total of 700 studies of treatment effectiveness will be available for meta-analyses. A secondary aim is to strengthen meta-analytic techniques and improve the methodological quality by (a) identifying sources of inconsistencies in meta-analyses conducted on the same topic and recommending improved protocols, (b) adapting and validating improved measures of the methodological quality of primary research studies, and (c) evaluating the use of different methods for dealing with missing data. The project has implications for practice as it will provide researchers and practitioners substantially more knowledge of (1) which principles of treatment are indeed effective in improving client outcomes, possibly under specific moderating factors (e.g., with specific types of clients), and (2) the scientific strength and limitations of meta-analysis using current protocols and how this essential method can be improved.