Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic review

Abstract

Purpose. Offender motivation is one specific responsivity variable in offender treatment and motivational interviewing (MI) is commonly used by corrections personnel. Although evidence for the effectiveness of motivational interviewing is accruing overall, a review of MI specifically with offender populations is required.Method. Relevant databases and websites were searched using terms relating to MI with offenders.

Treatment engagement as a predictor of premature treatment termination and treatment outcome in a correctional outpatient sample

“…This motivation, in turn, depends on the patient's problem recognition, perception of the treatment and therapists, outcome expectancy, distress, perceived legal pressure and experienced strain from the treatment. Most of these cognitive and emotional determinants of the patient's motivation to make efforts for the treatment can be infl uenced, either by specifi c interventions such as motivational interviewing and motivational enhancement therapy (McMurran, 2009), by a general motivational style (e.g. Kear-Colwell and Pollock, 1997) or by adherence to the responsivity principle, i.e.…”

Motivating compliance: Juvenile probation officer strategies and skills

“…Among evidence-based interventions, motivational interviewing has been show to effectively promote behavioral change across a variety of populations and settings (Cushing et al, 2014;Jensen et al, 2011). Among adult offenders, the principles of motivational interviewing -embodied by a practitioner's use of reflective listening, open-ended questions, and affirmations -have been associated with rule compliance and reduced criminal recidivism (McMurran, 2009). Though empirical tests of motivational interviewing with youth offender outcomes are relatively few, employing motivational interviewing skills in the juvenile justice system has also garnered theoretical support (Schwalbe, 2012).…”

“…For example, when compared to an alternative or no treatment, motivational interviewing has generally been associated with improved adult and adolescent patient outcomes over a range of clinical healthcare settings and disorders, including successful management of diabetes, asthma, obesity, as well as problematic substance use (see Cushing et al, 2014;Gayes & Steele, 2014;Hettema, Steele, & Miller, 2005;Jensen et al, 2011;Lundahl, Kunz, Brownell, Tollefson, & Burke, 2010;Rubak, Sandbaek, Lauritzen, & Christensen, 2005, for review). Motivational interviewing has also been lauded within criminal justice settings for its demonstrated effectiveness in increasing rule compliance and reducing criminal recidivism among adult offenders (McMurran, 2009;Walters, Vader, Nguyen, Harris, & Eells, 2010).…”

Trois modèles motivationnels et le traitement de la dépendance aux substances psychoactives

“…Ces recensions ou méta-analyses portent sur l'efficacité des traitements appliqués aux clientèles générales en traitement pour leur dépendance aux substances psychoactives (Burke et coll., 2003;Hettema et coll., 2005;Rubak et coll., 2005), aux personnes toxicomanes ayant des troubles de santé mentale sévères (Cleary et coll., 2009;Cleary et coll., 2008) ou aux personnes toxicomanes étant aussi dans un processus judiciaire (McMurran, 2009). …”

“…Les résultats soutiennent l'efficacité de l'entretien motivationnel, souvent en tant que modalité intégrée dans un modèle complexe, que ce soit au sujet de la réduction de la consommation de SPA (Miles et coll., 2007;Sinha et coll., 2003) ou de la persévérance en traitement (Carroll et coll., 2006;Lincourt et coll., 2002). Cependant, d'autres modalités, tels les groupes de soutien (Miles et coll., 2007) ou le renforcement par contingence (Carroll et coll., 2006), semblent plus efficaces à long terme dans la réduction de la consommation de SPA (McMurran, 2009). L'entretien motivationnel semble également favorable à titre d'intervention préparatoire à un traitement plus standard, favorisant un meilleur engagement dans ce programme (Stein et coll., 2006), une augmentation de l'intérêt au changement (Ginsburg, 2000;Mendel et Hipkins, 2002;Vanderberg, 2003) ou une amélioration de la confiance à affronter les situations à haut risque de provoquer la rechute (Slavet et coll., 2005).…”