4.1 Review

Cultural Adaptations of Motivational Interviewing: A Systematic Review

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 7-18

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/ser0000619

关键词

motivational interviewing; ethnic and racial minorities; cultural adaptations; systematic review; adult

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivational interviewing has expanded beyond substance use disorders and has been effective in treating various health concerns in different cultural groups. This review examines existing research on cultural adaptations of motivational interviewing and finds that it is particularly effective in working with specific populations.
Motivational interviewing (MI; Miller & Rollnick, 2012) has expanded from treating substance use disorders to other health concerns across a range of racial-ethnic groups and ages. The spirit of MI lends itself well to working with culturally diverse populations by eliciting the client's values and goals in a collaborative and client-centered approach in pursuit of behavior change. Additionally, MI has been further adapted for use with racial-ethnic minority groups to enhance its effectiveness with specific populations. The aim of this review was to investigate existing cultural adaptations of MI (CAMI), their effectiveness, and to provide directions for future cultural adaptations in both research and clinical settings. This systematic review identified studies of CAMI over the past 20 years using MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase. The final dataset consisted of 25 peer review studies. In the randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies that utilized a control condition (n = 17), 10 studies showed that the CAMI condition performed significantly better on at least the primary outcome measure than the control condition. All 10 studies adapted Context, Content, and Concepts-three of the dimensions of cultural adaptation defined by the ecological validity framework used in this study (Bernal et al., 1995).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据