Findings suggest that a motivation-enhancing approach can be effective in producing short-term change in factors that can help facilitate and sustain behavioral change. This is consistent with previous research on the use of motivational approaches, and extends such findings to suggest promise in group-based settings and with people across demographic categories and dependence levels. Future research should focus on larger studies looking at long-term behavioral change, including recidivism.

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OUI) is an international problem. In the United States, one intervention strategy is to require offenders to attend group-delivered interventions. We compared three year rearrest rates among 12,267 individuals in Maine receiving either a motivation-enhancing (ME) program, Prime For Life(®), or historical standard care (SC) programs. We created two cohorts, one when Maine used SC (9/1/1999-8/31/2000) and one after the ME program was implemented (9/1/2002-8/31/2003). Adjusted for control variables, rearrest rates among people not completing an assigned program did not differ for the ME versus SC cohorts (12.1% and 11.6%, respectively; OR=1.05, ns). In contrast, ME compared to SC program completers had lower rearrest rates (7.4% versus 9.9%, OR=0.73, p<.05). The same pattern occurred for people required to take these programs plus substance use treatment (12.1% versus 14.7%, OR=0.82, p<.01). For those rearrested, time to rearrest did not differ between ME and SC cohorts. Among those required to have substance abuse treatment, ME and SC arrest rates did not differ for younger individuals; otherwise, the ME cohort's lower rearrest rates occurred across gender, age, having a previous OUI, and having completed a previous intervention program.

Background Emerging adulthood is an age of particularly risky behavior. Substance misuse during this phase of life can be the beginning of longer-term problems, making intervention programs particularly important. This study’s purposes were to identify alcohol use profile subgroups, describe the preintervention characteristics of each, and assess how many participants transitioned to lower-risk profiles during the course of the intervention.MethodsWe used latent transition analyses to categorize 1183 people court ordered to attend Prime For Life® (PFL), a motivation-enhancing program, into preintervention and postintervention profiles. We then assessed how many made transitions between these profiles during the course of the intervention.ResultsProfiles included two low-risk statuses (abstinence and light drinking) and two high-risk statuses (occasional heavy drinking and frequent heavy drinking). We found that people in profile subgroups that reflected heavier 90-day preintervention drinking were likely to transition to profiles reflecting postintervention intentions for lower-risk drinking in the subsequent 90 days. In contrast, the likelihood of transitioning from a lower-risk to a higher-risk profile was extremely low. These positive changes were found for people of both sexes and for those above versus below the legal drinking age, albeit for more women than men in the heaviest drinking group.ConclusionsFindings showed positive changes during intervention for many emerging adult participants attending PFL. Further research is needed that include comparison conditions, as well as examine longer-term outcomes in this population.

Assessing the practical or clinical significance (CS) of an intervention program's outcomes is useful in determining its effectiveness. The CS approach gives information beyond traditional analyses by quantifying the proportions of people who meaningfully improve and deteriorate. We link latent transition analyses (LTA) to the CS literature and use a case study to contrast it with the long-standing Jacobson and Truax (JT) approach. Data came from 2,717 individuals convicted of a substance-related offense who participated in an indicated prevention program Prime For Life (PFL). We selected outcomes describing drinking beliefs and behavior. Both CS approaches categorized a majority of participants as improved (i.e., transitioning from baseline subgroups with risky behaviors and cognitions into posttest subgroups showing lower risk). Results demonstrate how the JT approach allows the assessment of improvements on individual outcomes, while the LTA provides more nuanced information about risk groupings. Selecting a CS approach depends on research goals, availability of normative data, and data considerations. JT is an appropriate method when evaluating single outcomes. In contrast, LTA is better when a multivariate description is desired, advanced missing data handling methods are needed, or outcomes are not normally distributed. Although infrequently done, evaluating CS provides useful information about program effectiveness.

BackgroundThere is significant interest in the value of motivational approaches that enhance participant readiness to change, but less is known about clients’ self-reports of problematic behavior when participating in such interventions.MethodsWe examined whether participants in a motivationally-based intervention for DUI offenders changed their reports of substance use at postintervention (when reporting on the same 30 days that they reported on at preintervention). Specifically, Study 1 (N = 8,387) tested whether participants in PRIME For Life (PFL) changed their reports about baseline substance levels when asked at postintervention versus at preintervention. Study 2 (N = 192) compared changes in self-reported baseline drinking between PFL and intervention as usual (IAU) participants.ResultsMany participants in Study 1 did not change their reports about how much they used substances during the 30-day period before baseline. Among those who did, the most common change was an increase in reported amounts of baseline drug use, and typical and peak alcohol use. This sample also showed changes in reports of their baseline pattern of high-risk-use (consistent versus occasional). At postintervention, participants who were younger, single, or endorsing more indicators of alcohol dependence were more likely to later report greater frequency of baseline drug use, and greater peak and typical number of baseline drinks. Gender, education, and race were also associated with reporting inconsistency on some behaviors. In Study 2, PFL participants showed greater increases in reports of peak alcohol use compared to IAU, but both conditions showed similar increases for drugs and typical alcohol use.ConclusionsIn both research and clinical settings, a segment of participants may initially report less substance use than they do when asked later about the same baseline period. These preliminary findings suggest clinicians and researchers may find postintervention evaluations yield reports of greater baseline alcohol or drug use for some people. For some behaviors, this may occur more often in interventions that target client motivation. Future research should attempt to identify which reports – preintervention vs. postintervention – better reflect actual baseline substance use.