首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Working alliance and empathy as mediators of brief telephone counseling for cigarette smokers who are not ready to quit
【2h】

Working alliance and empathy as mediators of brief telephone counseling for cigarette smokers who are not ready to quit

机译:工作联盟和同情心为尚未准备好戒烟的吸烟者提供简短的电话咨询服务

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Working alliance and empathy are believed to be important components of counseling, though few studies have empirically tested this. We recently conducted a randomized controlled trial in which brief motivational and reduction counseling failed to increase the number of participants who made a quit attempt (QA) in comparison to usual care (i.e., brief advice to quit). Our negative findings could have been due to non-specific factors. This secondary analysis used a subset of participants (n=347) to test a) whether, in comparison to usual care, brief telephone-based motivational or reduction counseling predicted greater working alliance or empathy, b) whether changes in these non-specific factors predicted an increased probability of a QA at a 6-month follow-up, and c) whether counseling affected the probability of a QA via working alliance or empathy (i.e., mediation). Findings were similar for both active counseling conditions (motivational and reduction) vs usual care. In comparison to usual care, active counseling predicted greater working alliance (p<.001) and empathy (p<.05). Greater working alliance predicted a greater probability of a QA (p<.001) but, surprisingly, greater empathy predicted a decreased probability of a QA (p<.05) at the 6-month follow-up. Both working alliance (p<.001) and empathy (p<.05) mediated the active counseling's effects on the probability of a QA. One explanation for our motivational and reduction interventions' failure to influence QAs in comparison to usual care is that working alliance and empathy had opposing effects on quitting. Our analyses illustrate how testing non-specific factors as mediators can help explain why a treatment failed.
机译:工作同盟和同理心被认为是咨询的重要组成部分,尽管很少有研究通过实证检验。我们最近进行了一项随机对照试验,其中与常规护理(即简短的戒烟建议)相比,简短的动机和减少咨询服务无法增加尝试戒烟(QA)的参与者的数量。我们的负面发现可能是由于非特定因素造成的。这项次要分析使用了一部分参与者(n = 347)来测试a)与常规护理相比,简短的基于电话的动机或减少咨询会预测更大的工作联盟或同情心,b)这些非特定因素的变化是否预测在6个月的随访中进行质量检查的可能性增加,并且c)咨询是否通过工作联盟或同理心(即,调解)影响了质量检查的可能性。主动咨询条件(动机和减少)与常规护理的发现相似。与常规护理相比,积极的咨询预计会有更大的工作联盟(p <.001)和同理心(p <.05)。工作联盟越大,预测QA的可能性就越大(p <.001),但是令人惊讶的是,更大的同情心则意味着在6个月的随访中QA的概率降低(p <.05)。工作同盟(p <.001)和同情心(p <.05)都介导了积极咨询对QA概率的影响。与通常的护理相比,我们的动机和减少干预措施无法影响QA的一种解释是,工作同盟和同理心对戒烟有相反的影响。我们的分析说明了如何测试非特异性因素作为介体可以帮助解释治疗失败的原因。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号