首页> 外文期刊>Addiction >High‐ versus low‐intensity internet interventions for alcohol use disorders: results of a three‐armed randomized controlled superiority trial
【24h】

High‐ versus low‐intensity internet interventions for alcohol use disorders: results of a three‐armed randomized controlled superiority trial

机译:用于酒精使用障碍的高与低强度的因特网干预:三武装随机控制优势试验的结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Abstract Aims To test the efficacy of a therapist‐guided high‐intensity internet intervention compared with an unguided low‐intensity internet intervention among individuals with alcohol use disorder. Design A three‐group randomized controlled trial with follow‐up assessments post‐treatment (12?weeks) and 6?months post‐randomization (primary end‐point). Settings General population sample in Sweden. Participants A total of 166 on‐line self‐referred adults (49% males) with a score of 14 (females)/16 (males) or more on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, a preceding week alcohol consumption of 11 (females)/14 (males) or more standard drinks and an alcohol use disorder according to a diagnostic interview. Interventions and comparators Both the high‐ ( n ?=?72) and low‐intensity internet interventions ( n ?=?71) consisted of modules based on relapse prevention. Controls were on a waiting‐list ( n ?=?23), and were only followed until the post‐treatment follow‐up. Participants were randomized at a 7?: 7?:?2 ratio. Measurements Primary outcome was self‐reported alcohol consumption in the preceding week measured as (1) number of standard drinks and (2) number of heavy drinking days at the 6‐month follow‐up. Findings Alcohol use disorders were largely in the severe category (74.7%), with the majority of participants having had alcohol problems for more than 5?years. Attrition was 13 and 22% at the post‐treatment and 6‐month follow‐up, respectively. At the 6‐month follow‐up, an intent‐to‐treat analysis showed no significant differences in alcohol consumption between the high‐ and low‐intensity interventions [standard drinks d ?=??0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI)?=??0.50 to 0.16; heavy drinking days: d ?=??0.07, 95% CI?=??0.40 to 0.26]. Prevalence of negative effects was somewhat low (8–14%) in both intervention groups, as was deterioration (3–5%). Conclusions At 6‐month follow‐up, there were no significant differences between a therapist‐guided high‐intensity internet intervention and an unguided low‐intensity internet intervention in reducing alcohol consumption among individuals with an alcohol use disorder.
机译:摘要旨在测试治疗师引导的高强度互联网干预的功效与含酒器使用障碍的个体中的个体的无导体低强度互联网干预。在治疗后的后续评估(12?周)和6?月后的后续评估设计三组随机对照试验(主要终点点)。设置瑞典的一般人口样本。参与者共有166个在线自我提升成年人(49%的男性),分得分14(女性)/ 16(男性)或更多的酒精使用障碍鉴定试验,前一周的酒精消费11名(女性) / 14/14(男性)或更多标准饮料和酒精使用根据诊断面试。干预措施和比较器都是高(n?=α72)和低强度的因特网干预(n?=?71)由基于复发预防的模块组成。控件在等待列表中(n?=?23),只遵循后处理后续行动。参与者在7架7?:7?:2比例。测量主要结果是在前一周内自我报告的酒精消耗量测量为(1)标准饮料数量和(2)6个月随访时间的重饮用天数。调查结果酒精使用障碍主要是严重的类别(74.7%),大多数参与者都有5个以上的酒精问题。后处理和6个月随访分别为13岁至22%。在6个月的随访中,意图对治疗分析显示出高强度和低强度干预之间的酒精消耗没有显着差异[标准饮料D吗?= ?? 0.17,95%置信区间(CI)? = ?? 0.50至0.16;沉重的饮酒天:D?= ?? 0.07,95%CI?= ?? 0.40至0.26]。两种干预群中,负面影响的患病率略低(8-14%),劣化(3-5%)。结论在6个月的随访中,治疗师引导的高强度互联网干预和一种无级低强度的互联网干预之间没有显着差异,以减少具有酒精使用障碍的个体醇消耗。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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