555例危险行为高危青少年的心理干预：来自个体辅导和团体辅导的效果对照

对有较高风险发展为危险行为青少年的高危群体实施有针对性的心理干预是非常有价值的。本研究对青少年危险行为高危人群进行结构化的个体与团体心理干预，评估两种干预的即时效果和六个月的预后情况。采用《青少年健康相关危险行为问卷》等量表对16所中职院校的学生进行筛查，共555名学生参加本研究，被随机分为个体、团体和对照组并分别进行干预。结果发现：干预后，个体心理干预组被试的危险行为水平、心理健康以及抑郁和焦虑情绪均获得显著改善，并且6个月的预后效果依然明显，而接受团体辅导干预组仅在抑郁指标上有所改善，在危险行为评分、焦虑和心理健康水平上均没有明显的改善。研究认为，对危险行为易感青少年的心理干预应以经过良好设计的个体心理干预为主、团体干预为辅的方式进行。

Psychological Intervention for 555 Adolescents in High Risk Behaviors: the Contrast of Effects from the result of Individual and Group Counseling

Nowadays, high risk behaviors in adolescents are more and more critical and serious. However, the relative studies were most carried out to investigate the ratio of these behaviors. In the field of psychological intervention, there are few studies about the adolescents’ high risk behaviors. Accordingly， it is very important and valuable to conduct psychological intervention for the group of adolescents in high risk behaviors in accordance with individual situations. In this study, we worked out and implemented a practicable program which consist of structured individual counseling and group counseling to help high risk adolescents.. The aim of this research is to assess the effectiveness of the conseling intervention both in the end of the program instantly and six months later. We used the Adolescent Health related Risky Behavior Inventory (AHRBI) and the Mental Health Scale for secondary School Students(MHS-SSS) to choose subjects from 16 vocational schools in Wuhan and Jingzhou. Then 899 qualified students were screened from 7439 students. A sample of 555 adolescents was volunteered to participate this study. Their ages ranged from 14 to 19 years old (averaged age=16.4). These students were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) 207 in individual counseling group, (2) 139 in group counseling group, (3) 209 in control group. To assessment the effect of the intervention, we asked all the subjects to complete AHRBI, MHS-SSS, The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) before and after the counseling, as well as six months later. The participants in group 1 had receive individual counseling for 3 times at weekly intervals. Each time lasted about 50 minutes. While participants in group 2 had received group counseling for 6 times, twice a week. Each time lasted about 90 minutes. The control group had no intervention. All interventions were focused on the topics of personality, family, study, emotion, relationship and sexual problems. As a result, after psychological intervention, the scores of the AHRBI, CES-D, and SAS of the students in individual counseling group became significantly lower than the control group(p<0.01), while the scores of the MHS-SSS became significantly higher(p<0.01). It showed that the levels of risk behaviors, mental health, depression and anxiety had all improved markedly. Moreover, the improvements lasted stably six months later. However, there was only a measurable reduction in students’ depression for group counseling(p<0.05). And there were no improvements in other aspects of group counseling students. It’s suggested that the psychological intervention for adolescents at high risk behaviors should be designed well. Specifically, individual counseling should be considered as the first and the main form of intervention, together with group counseling as supplementary form of intervention.