Author
Listed:
- Geir Smedslund
- Rigmor C. Berg
- Karianne T. Hammerstrøm
- Asbjørn Steiro
- Kari A. Leiknes
- Helene M. Dahl
- Kjetil Karlsen
Abstract
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.
Suggested Citation
Geir Smedslund & Rigmor C. Berg & Karianne T. Hammerstrøm & Asbjørn Steiro & Kari A. Leiknes & Helene M. Dahl & Kjetil Karlsen, 2011.
"Motivational interviewing for substance abuse,"
Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 1-126.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:camsys:v:7:y:2011:i:1:p:1-126
DOI: 10.4073/csr.2011.6
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- Zule, W.A. & Costenbader, E.C. & Coomes, C.M. & Wechsberg, W.M., 2009.
"Effects of a hepatitis C virus educational intervention or a motivational intervention on alcohol use, injection drug use, and sexual risk behaviors among injection drug users,"
American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(S1), pages 180-186.
- Baer, J.S. & Kivlahan, D.R. & Blume, A.W. & McKnight, P. & Marlatt, G.A., 2001.
"Brief intervention for heavy-drinking college students: 4-Year follow-up and natural history,"
American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(8), pages 1310-1316.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Ahmad, Jamilah & Joel, Ugwuoke C. & Talabi, Felix Olajide & Bibian, Okeibunor Ngozi & Aiyesimoju, Ayodeji Boluwatife & Adefemi, Victor Oluwole & Gever, Verlumun Celestine, 2022.
"Impact of social media-based intervention in reducing youths’ propensity to engage in drug abuse in Nigeria,"
Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
- Mälarstig, Ida & Tyrberg, Marten J & Lundgren, Tobias & Alfonsson, Sven, 2023.
"Experiences of conducting a substance use disorder treatment, A-CRA, in compulsory institutional care for youth – The challenge of promoting openness in a closed, temporary setting,"
Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
- Jia Chen & Xianhong Li & Yang Xiong & Kristopher P. Fennie & Honghong Wang & Ann Bartley Williams, 2016.
"Reducing the risk of HIV transmission among men who have sex with men: A feasibility study of the motivational interviewing counseling method,"
Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 400-407, September.
- Barbara Riegel & Ruth Masterson Creber & Julia Hill & Jesse Chittams & Linda Hoke, 2016.
"Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing in Decreasing Hospital Readmission in Adults With Heart Failure and Multimorbidity,"
Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 25(4), pages 362-377, August.
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
- Supa Pengpid & Karl Peltzer & Hendry Van der Heever & Linda Skaal, 2013.
"Screening and Brief Interventions for Hazardous and Harmful Alcohol Use among University Students in South Africa: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
- María-Teresa Cortés-Tomás & José-Antonio Giménez-Costa & Beatriz Martín-del-Río & Consolación Gómez-Íñiguez & Ángel Solanes-Puchol, 2021.
"Binge Drinking: The Top 100 Cited Papers,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-19, August.
- Patrick Allen Rose & Hugh Erik Schuckman & Sarah Soyeon Oh & Eun-Cheol Park, 2020.
"Associations between Gender, Alcohol Use and Negative Consequences among Korean College Students: A National Study,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-14, July.
- Salazar, Amy M. & Haggerty, Kevin P. & Roe, Stephanie S., 2016.
"Fostering Higher Education: A postsecondary access and retention intervention for youth with foster care experience,"
Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 46-56.
- Salvador Amigó & Angela Beleña, 2021.
"Drug Use Control Perception and Strategies in General and Clinical Population in a Spanish City,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-12, August.
- Elizabeth W. Cavadel & Jacqueline F. Kauff & Mary Anne Anderson & Sheena McConnell & Michelle Derr, "undated".
"Self-Regulation and Goal Attainment: A New Perspective for Employment Programs,"
Mathematica Policy Research Reports
e49aff23628f45bd847fd2e86, Mathematica Policy Research.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:7:y:2011:i:1:p:1-126. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.