Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26185335›Full record

ArticleJournal of contemporary psychotherapy2015

Client and Therapist Views about Intensive and Standard Motivational Interviewing.

Douglas L Polcin, Jennifer Sterling, Thomas Brown, Michelle Brown, Raymond Buscemi, Rachael Korcha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of contemporary psychotherapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Douglas L PolcinPrivate Practice, Berkeley, CA.
Jennifer SterlingPrivate Practice, Berkeley, CA.
Thomas BrownPrivate Practice, San Francisco, CA.
Michelle BrownNew Leaf Treatment Center, Lafayette, CA.
Raymond BuscemiPrivate Practice, San Francisco, CA.
Rachael KorchaPrivate Practice, Berkeley, CA.

Funding

Intensive Motivational Interviewing for Methamphetamine DependenceR01DA024714 · NIDA · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI POLCIN, DOUGLAS L · 2009 to 2013
$2.8M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA024714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although motivational interviewing (MI) is a widely used intervention for alcohol and drug problems, little is known about client and therapist experiences. Client and therapist views could help better understand how MI works and what factors are important. This paper investigates experiences of clients and therapists who participated in a study that examined a standard single session of MI (MI 1) and a more intensive 9-session model (MI 9) for methamphetamine dependence. Qualitative methods included open ended questions presented to 184 clients at 2-month follow-up and 189 clients at 6-month follow-up. In addition, a focus group consisting of two therapists who delivered the interventions and two adherence monitors who listened to audiotape recordings of sessions was conducted. Clients in both conditions felt supportive, nonjudgmental therapist attitudes were helpful. Most clients in the MI 9 condition but few receiving MI 1 volunteered that feedback and advice were helpful. A strong majority in both conditions desired more sessions. Expert panel members emphasized: 1) multiple benefits of a nonjudgmental stance, 2) finding the right balance among different MI interventions, and 3) understanding the interaction of supportive and directive interventions. Panel members also emphasized that one advantages of MI 9 over MI 1 was that it enabled client change plans to be implemented over time.

Indexed as

Client ViewsMethamphetamineMotivational InterviewingPsychotherapyRandomized Clinical TrialTherapist ViewsTreatment Dose

Identifiers

PMID26185335
PMCPMC4500177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.