Older adults may have unique daily drivers of drinking that are not fully realized in current research and intervention efforts. Addressing the growing substance-use treatment needs among this population will require identifying the unique drivers of drinking among older adults, such as boredom, when compared to younger adults.

Gaining a better understanding of the change process holds promise to improve alcohol treatment. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) coupled with intensive longitudinal data (ILD) approaches have been proposed as promising methods that can advance change process research but have been used infrequently in AUD treatment research. The current study used these approaches to examine the within-person associations of motivation and self-efficacy and drinking among treatment seeking problem drinkers. Participants (N=96) received daily EMA surveys before, during, and after treatment for seven weeks spread over a nine month period. Multi-level modeling was used to test the within-person relationships between the change processes and drinking, controlling for between-person associations and prior drinking. Results indicated that daily fluctuations in motivation and self-efficacy significantly predicted drinking over the next 24 hours; however, several theory-driven hypotheses regarding factors that might moderate that relationship were not supported. Overall, results support the advantages of EMA and ILD as methods that can advance AUD treatment research.

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is an efficacious treatment for alcohol use disorders (AUD). MI is thought to enhance motivation via a combination of two therapeutic strategies or active ingredients: one relational and one directional. The primary aim of this study was to examine MI’s hypothesized active ingredients using a dismantling design. Problem drinkers (N=139) seeking treatment were randomized to one of three conditions: MI, relational MI without the directional elements labeled spirit-only MI (SOMI) or a non-therapy control (NTC) condition and followed for eight weeks. Those assigned to MI or SOMI received four sessions of treatment over eight weeks. All participants significantly reduced their drinking by week 8, but reductions were equivalent across conditions. The hypothesis that baseline motivation would significantly moderate condition effects on outcome was generally not supported. Failure to find support for MI𠄉s hypothesized active ingredients is discussed in the context of the strengths and limitations of the study design.

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a known effective intervention for alcohol use disorder (AUD). MI's mechanisms of action remain inconsistently substantiated, and research in this area has been reliant on identifying relationships through strength of association rather than experimental manipulation of active ingredients. In two previous studies, a pilot and a larger replication study, we disaggregated MI into its hypothesized active ingredients by creating three conditions: MI, Spirit Only MI (SOMI, in which evocation of change talk was proscribed), and a non-therapy condition (NTC). Results from both studies yielded equivalent findings across all three conditions. In the current analyses, data from both studies were combined to test five participant characteristics as moderators of MI's component parts: 1) severity of baseline drinking, 2) severe AUD (met 6 or more criteria), 3) baseline self-efficacy to moderate drinking, 4) mean daily confidence to resist heavy drinking in the week prior to treatment initiation, and 5) depression. There were no significant findings related to baseline drinking, severe AUD, or baseline self-efficacy. Confidence yielded a significant interaction effect. When participants had high baseline confidence, drinking for those in MI increased compared to those in SOMI. Depression also yielded a significant moderating effect such that in the context of higher depressive symptoms, receipt of either therapy reduced drinking relative to NTC. Results are discussed in light of existing literature on MOBC with MI and the potential role exploring ambivalence may play for participants with particular characteristics.

No abstract