首页> 外文OA文献 >Psychological interventions for alcohol use disorders in people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review
【2h】

Psychological interventions for alcohol use disorders in people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review

机译:艾滋病毒/艾滋病患者中酒精使用障碍的心理干预:系统审查

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

Abstract Background Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH) are a significant impediment to achieving virological control. HIV non-suppression in PLWH with AUDs is mainly attributable to sub-optimal antiretroviral therapy adherence. Sub-optimal adherence makes control of the epidemic elusive, considering that effective antiretroviral treatment and viral suppression are the two key pillars in reducing new infections. Psychological interventions have been proposed as effective treatments for the management of AUDs in PLWH. Evidence for their effectiveness has been inconsistent, with two reviews (2010 and 2013) concluding a lack of effectiveness. However, a 2017 review that examined multiple HIV prevention and treatment outcomes suggested that behavioural interventions were effective in reducing alcohol use. Since then, several studies have been published necessitating a re-examination of this evidence. This review provides an updated synthesis of the effectiveness of psychological interventions for AUDs in PLWH. Methods A search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, PsychInfo (Ovid) and Clinical trials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) for eligible studies until August 2018 for psychotherapy and psychosocial interventions for PLWH with AUDs. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts to select studies that met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction with any differences resolved through discussion. Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the concordance between the first and second reviewers was 0.63 and between the first and third reviewers 0.71. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials using psychological interventions in people aged 16 and above, with comparisons being usual care, enhanced usual care, other active treatments or waitlist controls. Results A total of 21 studies (6954 participants) were included in this review. Studies had diverse populations including men alone, men and women and men who had sex with men (MSM). Use of motivational interviewing alone or blended with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and technology/computer-assisted platforms were common as individual-level interventions, while a few studies investigated group motivational interviewing or CBT. Alcohol use outcomes were all self-report and included assessment of the quantity and the frequency of alcohol use. Measured secondary outcomes included viral load, CD4 count or other self-reported outcomes. There was a lack of evidence for significant intervention effects in the included studies. Isolated effects of motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioural therapy and group therapy were noted. However for some of the studies that found significant effects, the effect sizes were small and not sustained over time. Owing to the variation in outcome measures employed across studies, no meta-analysis could be carried out. Conclusion This systematic review did not reveal large or sustained intervention effects of psychological interventions for either primary alcohol use or secondary HIV-related outcomes. Due to the methodological heterogeneity, we were unable to undertake a meta-analysis. Effectiveness trials of psychological interventions for AUDs in PLWH that include disaggregation of data by level of alcohol consumption, gender and age are needed. There is a need to standardise alcohol use outcome measures across studies and include objective biomarkers that provide a more accurate measure of alcohol consumption and are relatively free from social desirability bias. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42017063856.
机译:在艾滋病病毒感染者/ AIDS(艾滋病毒感染者)的人抽象的背景酒精使用障碍(AUD中)是一个显著阻碍实现病毒学控制。 HIV非抑制艾滋病毒感染者与AUD中,主要是由于次优的抗逆转录病毒治疗依从性。次优的坚持,使疫情难以捉摸的控制,考虑到有效的抗病毒治疗和抑制病毒在减少新感染的两大支柱。心理干预已被提议作为有效的治疗AUD中的艾滋病毒感染者的管理。证据为自己效力一直是不一致的,有2条评论(2010年和2013年)缔结缺乏有效性。然而,2017年审查,审查多种艾滋病毒的预防和治疗结果表明,行为干预,有效减少酒精的使用。从那时起,一些研究已经发表迫使这方面的证据进行重新审查。本文综述了心理干预在PLWH AUD中的有效性进行更新合成。方法将搜索在以下数据库进行的:考研,试验的科克伦中央登记册(CENTRAL),MEDLINE(奥维德),文摘,PsychInfo(奥维德)和临床trials.gov(clinicaltrials.gov)对符合条件的研究,直到2018八月心理治疗和PLWH与AUD中心理干预。两名评价者独立筛选题目,摘要和全文选择研究,符合纳入标准。两名评价者独立通过讨论解决分歧进行数据提取。偏压的风险,使用偏置工具的循证医学风险由两个独立的评审评估,并且在第一和第二审阅之间的符合率为0.63,并且第一和第三审阅0.71之间。入选标准是在16岁及以上的人使用心理干预的随机对照试验,以比较为常规护理,增强常规护理,其它活性治疗或等候控制。结果共21项研究(6954人参加)被列入本次审查。研究了不同人群包括男性独自一人,男人,女人和男人谁与男子(MSM)发生性关系。的动机访谈单独或与认知行为疗法(CBT)和技术混合使用/计算机辅助平台是共同作为个体水平的干预,而少数研究调查组动机访谈或CBT。酒精的使用效果都是自我报告和数量的评估包括酒精和使用频率。测量的二次终点包括病毒载量,CD4细胞计数或其它自报告的结果。有一个缺乏对纳入研究的显著干预影响的证据。动机访谈,认知行为治疗和团体治疗的隔震效果分析指出。然而,对于一些发现显著影响研究,影响的大小都很小,未能持续。由于在整个研究中采用观察指标的变化,没有荟萃分析可以开展。结论该系统评价没有透露任伯醇使用或二次HIV有关的成果心理干预或大或持续的干预效果。由于方法学异质性,我们无法进行荟萃分析。需要通过饮酒,性别和年龄的水平包括数据分类为PLWH AUD中心理干预的有效性试验。有必要规范不同研究使用酒精成果的措施,包括客观的生物标志物提供饮酒的更准确的测量,并从社会期望偏差相对自由。系统评价注册PROSPERO CRD 42017063856。

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