Search

OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically review and meta-analyze the literature comparing motivational interviewing (MI) with a control condition for adolescent health behavior change. In the current article, we reviewed only studies targeting health behaviors other than substance use (e.g., sexual risk behavior, physical activity, diet). METHOD: Systematic literature searches of PsycINFO, PubMed/Medline, and ERIC were conducted through June 2013. Databases were combined, and studies were screened for inclusion or exclusion. To be included in the current review, studies were required to (a) compare the efficacy of at least 1 session of MI intervention with a control condition using a between-groups design and (b) examine a non-substance-use health behavior in adolescents. Fifteen studies met criteria for inclusion and were described qualitatively and quantitatively. RESULTS: Using a fixed-effects model, we found that MI interventions produced a small, but significant, aggregate effect size for short-term postintervention effects-g = .16; 95% confidence interval (CI) [.05, .27]-compared with control conditions. Moreover, this effect was sustained at follow-up assessments averaging 33.6 weeks postintervention, n = 8, g = .18, 95% CI [.05, .32]. CONCLUSIONS: MI interventions for adolescent health behavior appear to be effective. In addition, the magnitude of the aggregate effect size does not appear to differ meaningfully from reports of interventions targeting only substance use in adolescents. However, significant lack of clarity exists regarding interventionist training requirements necessary to ensure intervention effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: There are 76.3 million people with alcohol use disorders worldwide and 15.3 million with drug use disorders. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred, semi-directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence. The intervention is used widely, and therefore it is important to find out whether it helps, harms or is ineffective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance abuse on drug use, retention in treatment, readiness to change, and number of repeat convictions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 18 electronic databases, 5 web sites, 4 mailing lists, and reference lists from included studies and reviews. Search dates were November 30, 2010 for Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and PsychINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials with persons dependent or abusing substance. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy. The outcomes were extent of substance abuse, retention in treatment, motivation for change, repeat conviction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and two authors extracted data. Results were categorized into (1) MI versus no-treatment control, (2) MI versus treatment as usual, (3) MI versus assessment and feedback, and (4) MI versus other active treatment. Within each category, we computed meta-analyses separately for post-intervention, short, medium and long follow-ups. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies with a total of 13,342 participants. Compared to no treatment control MI showed a significant effect on substance use which was strongest at post-intervention SMD 0.79, (95% CI 0.48 to 1.09) and weaker at short SMD 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.26], and medium follow-up SMD 0.15 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.25]). For long follow-up, the effect was not significant SMD 0.06 (95% CI-0.16 to 0.28). There were no significant differences between MI and treatment as usual for either follow-up post-intervention, short and medium follow up. MI did better than assessment and feedback for medium follow-up SMD 0.38 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.66). For short follow-up, there was no significant effect . For other active intervention there were no significant effects for either follow-up.There was not enough data to conclude about effects of MI on the secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: MI can reduce the extent of substance abuse compared to no intervention. The evidence is mostly of low quality, so further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Motivation is an integral factor in substance use treatment and long-term recovery. However, it is unclear what role intrinsic and extrinsic motivation play across different treatment modalities. A meta-analysis (N = 84) was performed to estimate the pooled effect size of Motivational Interviewing (MI; primarily targeting intrinsic motivation) and contingency management (CM; primarily targeting extrinsic motivation) at different follow-up periods. Collapsed across all substance types, CM had a significant effect at 3-month follow-up, only. In contrast, MI had a significant effect at 6-month follow-up, only. CM had small and medium effects on multiple substances at 3-month follow-up (i.e., tobacco, marijuana, stimulants, polysubstances), but not at 6-month follow-up. MI had 1 significant medium effect at 3-month follow-up (i.e., marijuana), but several significant small effects at 6-month follow-up (i.e., alcohol, tobacco, polysubstances). This meta-analysis suggests that both CM and MI promote reductions in a range of substances, even several months after the intervention concludes. Further, these results provide some evidence that extrinsically focused CM may produce medium follow-up effects in the short run, but intrinsically focused MI may produce small but durable follow-up effects. However, this interpretation is complicated by the differences between the MI and CM studies that preclude statistical tests comparing effect sizes, and few studies assessed motivation itself. Future researchers should investigate how motivational dynamics impact lasting outcomes in substance use treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record

More than 76 million people worldwide have alcohol problems, and another 15 million have drug problems. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a psychological treatment that aims to help people cut down or stop using drugs and alcohol. The drug abuser and counsellor typically meet between one and four times for about one hour each time. The counsellor expresses that he or she understands how the clients feel about their problem and supports the clients in making their own decisions. He or she does not try to convince the client to change anything, but discusses with the client possible consequences of changing or staying the same. Finally, they discuss the clients' goals and where they are today relative to these goals. We searched for studies that had included people with alcohol or drug problems and that had divided them by chance into MI or a control group that either received nothing or some other treatment. We included only studies that had checked video or sound recordings of the therapies in order to be certain that what was given really was MI. The results in this review are based on 59 studies. The results show that people who have received MI have reduced their use of substances more than people who have not received any treatment. However, it seems that other active treatments, treatment as usual and being assessed and receiving feedback can be as effective as motivational interviewing. There was not enough data to conclude about the effects of MI on retention in treatment, readiness to change, or repeat convictions. The quality of the research forces us to be careful about our conclusions, and new research may change them. ABSTRACT Background There are 76.3 million people with alcohol use disorders worldwide and 15.3 million with drug use disorders. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client‐centred, semi‐directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence. The intervention is used widely, and therefore it is important to find out whether it helps, harms or is ineffective. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance abuse on drug use, retention in treatment, readiness to change, and number of repeat convictions. Search strategy We searched 18 electronic databases, 5 web sites, 4 mailing lists, and reference lists from included studies and reviews. Search dates were November 30, 2010 for Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and PsychINFO. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials with persons dependent or abusing substance. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy. The outcomes were extent of substance abuse, retention in treatment, motivation for change, repeat conviction. Data collection and analysis Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and two authors extracted data. Results were categorized into (1) MI versus no‐treatment control, (2) MI versus treatment as usual, (3) MI versus assessment and feedback, and (4) MI versus other active treatment. Within each category, we computed meta‐analyses separately for post‐intervention, short, medium and long follow‐ups. Main results We included 59 studies with a total of 13,342 participants. Compared to no treatment control MI showed a significant effect on substance use which was strongest at post‐intervention SMD 0.79, (95% CI 0.48 to 1.09) and weaker at short SMD 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.26], and medium follow‐up SMD 0.15 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.25]). For long follow‐up, the effect was not significant SMD 0.06 (95% CI‐0.16 to 0.28). There were no significant differences between MI and treatment as usual for either follow‐up post‐intervention, short and medium follow up. MI did better than assessment and feedback for medium follow‐up SMD 0.38 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.66). For short follow‐up, there was no significant effect . For other active intervention there were no significant effects for either follow‐up. There was not enough data to conclude about effects of MI on the secondary outcomes. Authors' conclusions MI can reduce the extent of substance abuse compared to no intervention. The evidence is mostly of low quality, so further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Motivational interviewing is a short psychological treatment that can help people cut down on drugs and alcohol More than 76 million people worldwide have alcohol problems, and another 15 million have drug problems. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a psychological treatment that aims to help people cut down or stop using drugs and alcohol. The drug abuser and counsellor typically meet between one and four times for about one hour each time. The counsellor expresses that he or she understands how the clients feel about their problem and supports the clients in making their own decisions. He or she does not try to convince the client to change anything, but discusses with the client possible consequences of changing or staying the same. Finally, they discuss the clients' goals and where they are today relative to these goals. We searched for studies that had included people with alcohol or drug problems and that had divided them by chance into MI or a control group that either received nothing or some other treatment. We included only studies that had checked video or sound recordings of the therapies in order to be certain that what was given really was MI. The results in this review are based on 59 studies. The results show that people who have received MI have reduced their use of substances more than people who have not received any treatment. However, it seems that other active treatments, treatment as usual and being assessed and receiving feedback can be as effective as motivational interviewing. There was not enough data to conclude about the effects of MI on retention in treatment, readiness to change, or repeat convictions. The quality of the research forces us to be careful about our conclusions, and new research may change them.

AIMS: (1) To examine whether or not motivational interviewing (MI) is more efficacious than no intervention in reducing alcohol consumption; (2) to examine whether or not MI is as efficacious as other interventions. METHOD: A literature search followed by a meta-analytic review of randomized control trials of MI interventions. Aggregated between-group effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated for each study. RESULTS: Literature search revealed 22 relevant studies, of which nine compared brief MI with no treatment, and met methodological criteria for inclusion. In these, the aggregate effect size was 0.18 (95% C.I. 0.07, 0.29), but was greater 0.60 (95% C.I. 0.36, 0.83) when, in a post-hoc analysis, the follow-up period was three months or less. Its efficacy also increased when dependent drinkers were excluded. There were nine studies meeting methodological criteria for inclusion which compared brief MI with another treatment (one of a diverse set of interventions), yielding an aggregate effect size of 0.43(95% C.I. 0.17, 0.70). The literature review pointed to several factors which may influence MI's long-term efficacy effectiveness of MI. CONCLUSIONS: Brief MI is effective. Future studies should focus on possible predictors of efficacy such as gender, age, employment status, marital status, mental health, initial expectations, readiness to change, and whether the population is drawn from treatment-seeking or non-treatment-seeking populations. Also, the components of MI should be compared to determine which are most responsible for maintaining long-term changes.

BACKGROUND: In the 26 years since it was first introduced in this journal, motivational interviewing (MI) has become confused with various other ideas and approaches, owing in part to its rapid international diffusion. METHODS: Based on confusions that have arisen in publications and presentations regarding MI, the authors compiled a list of 10 concepts and procedures with which MI should not be addled. RESULTS: This article discusses 10 things that MI is not: (1) the transtheoretical model of change; (2) a way of tricking people into doing what you want them to do; (3) a technique; (4) decisional balance; (5) assessment feedback; (6) cognitive-behavior therapy; (7) client-centered therapy; (8) easy to learn; (9) practice as usual; and (10) a panacea. CONCLUSION: Clarity about what does (and does not) constitute MI promotes quality assurance in scientific research, clinical practice, and training.