The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: a systematic review

Dunn, Chris; DeRoo, Lisa A.; Rivara, Frederick P.

doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961217253.x

Cited by 802 publications

(583 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

540

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such repeated testing has been conducted on the use of motivational enhancement therapy for the treatment of nicotine, alcohol, and cocaine dependence (e.g. Dunn et al, 2001), and the use of cognitive-behavioral strategies for nicotine, alcohol and other drug dependences (Carroll, 1996). On the other hand, failure of initial studies with an arbitrarily chosen patient sample may lead to premature abandonment of a treatment with promise for abusers of another class of drugs.…”

Section: Inefficiency Of Behavioral Therapies Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single versus multiple drug focus in substance abuse clinical trials research

Rounsaville

Petry

Carroll

2003

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex patterns of multiple substance use pose clinical and methodological challenges for substance abuse clinical trials research. To increase measurement precision and internal validity, the modal approach has been to target both treatment interventions and outcome assessment to a single class of abused substance. This strategy warrants reconsideration because it entails limitations in recruitment feasibility and generalization of study findings. This report reviews pros and cons of single versus multiple targeted drugs, suggests guidelines for choosing between these strategies and outlines methods for broadening the scope of substance abuse clinical trails to take abuse of multiple substances into account. We recommend that investigators consider moving away from a single drug focus in three ways. First, include systematic assessment of a wide range of psychoactive substance use throughout the trial and evaluate the impact of study treatments on use of all classes of drugs. Second, except where contraindicated, include patients who use and abuse multiple classes of substances even in trials evaluating treatment of a single targeted drug. Third, consider inclusion of polysubstance abusers or those who primarily abuse multiple classes of substances in the same clinical trial. Although many treatment efficacy questions can best be answered by single focus studies, we recommend that such designs be adopted only after less restrictive designs are first considered.

show abstract

Section: Inefficiency Of Behavioral Therapies Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single versus multiple drug focus in substance abuse clinical trials research

Rounsaville

Petry

Carroll

2003

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The principles of MI include understanding the client's view, avoiding resistances by means of a non-confrontational approach and increasing clients' self-efficacy and the perceived discrepancy between their behavior and their current and long-term goals. Over the years this model of intervention has been shown to be effective in enhancing motivation towards change in several health-related behaviors [8]. Furthermore, some authors have stressed the importance of capitalizing on a teachable moment or window of opportunity [3], which provides good reason to conduct interventions in medical settings such as emergency rooms after a consultation related to substance-use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brief intervention in substance-use among adolescent psychiatric patients: a randomized controlled trial

Goti

Díaz

Serrano

et al. 2009

Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective of the study is to assess the efficacy of a brief motivational enhancement intervention in adolescents referred to psychiatric treatment who reported substance-use. In a sample of adolescents (n = 237) consecutively admitted to a psychiatry department, 143 were identified as users. Subjects were randomly allocated to one of two groups: an experimental group that received a brief intervention aimed at increasing their awareness of the risks of substance-use, or a control group. All subjects received standard treatment according to the primary diagnosis. Structured questionnaires assessing knowledge, problems, perception of risks and intention of use of psychoactive substances were administered upon admission and 1 month later. Fifty-nine subjects entered the experimental group and 44 the control group. No significant differences between the two groups were identified in socio-demographic features or substance-use. Nonparametric analyses showed a significant increase across time in overall knowledge about drugs and perception of risk in the experimental group (P \ 0.05). A significant increase in overall knowledge in the experimental group compared to controls was found (P \ 0.05). No differences were observed for other variables such as intention of use or perception of risk. Brief intervention in adolescents entering psychiatric treatment led to a significant change in overall knowledge about psychoactive substances but not in other variables related to use. Our results point to the need of more intensive interventions.

show abstract

“…Noonan and Moyers (1997) reviewed the 11 clinical trials of AMIs available at that time (9 with problem drinkers and 2 with drug abusers) and concluded that 9 of these studies supported the efficacy of AMIs for addictive behaviors. Dunn, DeRoo, and Rivara (2001) performed a systematic review of 29 randomized trials of brief interventions that claimed to use the principles and techniques of motivational interviewing (or what we have called AMIs) to change behavior in four areas: (a) substance abuse, (b) smoking, (c) HIV-risk reduction, and (d) diet and exercise. Data on methodological features were tabled, as were calculations of effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals, although the authors chose not to combine or compare data meta-analytically.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of motivational interviewing: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.

Burke¹,

Arkowitz²,

Menchola³

2003

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

1,389

1,011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A meta-analysis was conducted on controlled clinical trials investigating adaptations of motivational interviewing (AMIs), a promising approach to treating problem behaviors. AMIs were equivalent to other active treatments and yielded moderate effects (from .25 to .57) compared with no treatment and/or placebo for problems involving alcohol, drugs, and diet and exercise. Results did not support the efficacy of AMIs for smoking or HIV-risk behaviors. AMIs showed clinical impact, with 51% improvement rates, a 56% reduction in client drinking, and moderate effect sizes on social impact measures (d ϭ 0.47). Potential moderators (comparative dose, AMI format, and problem area) were identified using both homogeneity analyses and exploratory multiple regression. Results are compared with other review results and suggestions for future research are offered.

show abstract

The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: a systematic review

Abstract: To determine more effectively how well MI works in domains other than substance abuse and for whom it works best in all domains, researchers should study MI with risk behaviors other than substance abuse, while examining both interactions and the theoretical components of MI.

Cited by 802 publications

References 24 publications

Single versus multiple drug focus in substance abuse clinical trials research

Single versus multiple drug focus in substance abuse clinical trials research

Brief intervention in substance-use among adolescent psychiatric patients: a randomized controlled trial

The efficacy of motivational interviewing: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About