Alison K. Beck, Amanda L. Baker, Ben Britton, Alistair Lum, Sonja Pohlman, Erin Forbes, Lyndell Moore, Ditte Barnoth, Sarah J. Perkes, Chris Oldmeadow, Gregory Carter
{"title":"简短医疗咨询的适应性动机访谈：行为改变咨询真实世界评估中治疗忠诚度的系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Alison K. Beck, Amanda L. Baker, Ben Britton, Alistair Lum, Sonja Pohlman, Erin Forbes, Lyndell Moore, Ditte Barnoth, Sarah J. Perkes, Chris Oldmeadow, Gregory Carter","doi":"10.1111/bjhp.12664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Behaviour change counselling (BCC) is an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MI) designed to maximize the effectiveness of time-limited health behaviour change consultations. To improve intervention quality and understanding of treatment effects, it is recommended that evaluations of health behaviour change interventions incorporate existing fidelity frameworks (e.g. The National Institutes of Health [NIH] Behaviour Change Consortium) and ensure that treatment fidelity is assessed and reported.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This systematic review was designed to examine (a) adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations, (b) provider fidelity to BCC and (c) impact of these variables on the real-world effectiveness of BCC for adult health behaviours and outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods and Results</h3>\n \n <p>Searches of 10 electronic databases yielded 110 eligible publications describing 58 unique studies examining BCC delivered within real-world healthcare settings by existing providers. Mean study adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations was 63.31% (Range 26.83%–96.23%). Pooled effect size (Hedges <i>g</i>) for short-term and long-term outcomes was .19 (95% CI [.11, .27]) and .09 (95% CI [.04, .13]), respectively. In separate, random-effects meta-regressions, neither short-term nor long-term effect sizes were significantly modified by adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations. For the subgroup of short-term alcohol studies (<i>n</i> = 10), a significant inverse relationship was detected (Coefficient = −.0114, 95% CI [−.0187, −.0041], <i>p</i> = .0021). Inadequate and inconsistent reporting within the included studies precluded planned meta-regression between provider fidelity and BCC effect size.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Further evidence is needed to clarify whether adherence to fidelity recommendations modifies intervention effects. Efforts to promote transparent consideration, evaluation and reporting of fidelity are urgently needed. Research and clinical implications are discussed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48161,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Health Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjhp.12664","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adapted motivational interviewing for brief healthcare consultations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment fidelity in real-world evaluations of behaviour change counselling\",\"authors\":\"Alison K. Beck, Amanda L. Baker, Ben Britton, Alistair Lum, Sonja Pohlman, Erin Forbes, Lyndell Moore, Ditte Barnoth, Sarah J. Perkes, Chris Oldmeadow, Gregory Carter\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjhp.12664\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Behaviour change counselling (BCC) is an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MI) designed to maximize the effectiveness of time-limited health behaviour change consultations. To improve intervention quality and understanding of treatment effects, it is recommended that evaluations of health behaviour change interventions incorporate existing fidelity frameworks (e.g. The National Institutes of Health [NIH] Behaviour Change Consortium) and ensure that treatment fidelity is assessed and reported.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>This systematic review was designed to examine (a) adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations, (b) provider fidelity to BCC and (c) impact of these variables on the real-world effectiveness of BCC for adult health behaviours and outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods and Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Searches of 10 electronic databases yielded 110 eligible publications describing 58 unique studies examining BCC delivered within real-world healthcare settings by existing providers. Mean study adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations was 63.31% (Range 26.83%–96.23%). Pooled effect size (Hedges <i>g</i>) for short-term and long-term outcomes was .19 (95% CI [.11, .27]) and .09 (95% CI [.04, .13]), respectively. In separate, random-effects meta-regressions, neither short-term nor long-term effect sizes were significantly modified by adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations. For the subgroup of short-term alcohol studies (<i>n</i> = 10), a significant inverse relationship was detected (Coefficient = −.0114, 95% CI [−.0187, −.0041], <i>p</i> = .0021). Inadequate and inconsistent reporting within the included studies precluded planned meta-regression between provider fidelity and BCC effect size.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Further evidence is needed to clarify whether adherence to fidelity recommendations modifies intervention effects. Efforts to promote transparent consideration, evaluation and reporting of fidelity are urgently needed. Research and clinical implications are discussed.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Health Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjhp.12664\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Health Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjhp.12664\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjhp.12664","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Adapted motivational interviewing for brief healthcare consultations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment fidelity in real-world evaluations of behaviour change counselling
Background
Behaviour change counselling (BCC) is an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MI) designed to maximize the effectiveness of time-limited health behaviour change consultations. To improve intervention quality and understanding of treatment effects, it is recommended that evaluations of health behaviour change interventions incorporate existing fidelity frameworks (e.g. The National Institutes of Health [NIH] Behaviour Change Consortium) and ensure that treatment fidelity is assessed and reported.
Purpose
This systematic review was designed to examine (a) adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations, (b) provider fidelity to BCC and (c) impact of these variables on the real-world effectiveness of BCC for adult health behaviours and outcomes.
Methods and Results
Searches of 10 electronic databases yielded 110 eligible publications describing 58 unique studies examining BCC delivered within real-world healthcare settings by existing providers. Mean study adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations was 63.31% (Range 26.83%–96.23%). Pooled effect size (Hedges g) for short-term and long-term outcomes was .19 (95% CI [.11, .27]) and .09 (95% CI [.04, .13]), respectively. In separate, random-effects meta-regressions, neither short-term nor long-term effect sizes were significantly modified by adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations. For the subgroup of short-term alcohol studies (n = 10), a significant inverse relationship was detected (Coefficient = −.0114, 95% CI [−.0187, −.0041], p = .0021). Inadequate and inconsistent reporting within the included studies precluded planned meta-regression between provider fidelity and BCC effect size.
Conclusions
Further evidence is needed to clarify whether adherence to fidelity recommendations modifies intervention effects. Efforts to promote transparent consideration, evaluation and reporting of fidelity are urgently needed. Research and clinical implications are discussed.
期刊介绍：
The focus of the British Journal of Health Psychology is to publish original research on various aspects of psychology that are related to health, health-related behavior, and illness throughout a person's life. The journal specifically seeks articles that are based on health psychology theory or discuss theoretical matters within the field.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
