Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32666269›Full record

ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2021

Mechanisms of Motivational Interviewing: a Conceptual Framework to Guide Practice and Research.

Andy J Frey, Jon Lee, Jason W Small, Margaret Sibley, Julie Sarno Owens, Blake Skidmore, Laura Johnson, Catherine P Bradshaw, Theresa B Moyers

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. A theoretical explanation for how a nutrition counseling and medically tailored meal delivery program benefitted participants living with lung cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Exploring Fidelity Elements of a Motivational Interviewing-Based Implementation Strategy to Improve Adoption of Evidence-Based Practices in Schools.Journal of educational and psychological consultation : the official journal of the Association for Educational and Psychological Consultants · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Andy J FreyUniversity of Louisville Kent School of Social Work, Patterson Hall, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA. afrey@louisville.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7493-5728
Jon LeeUniversity of Northern Arizona College of Education, PO Box 5774, Flagstaff, AZ, 86001, USA.
Jason W SmallOregon Research Institute, 1715 Franklin Blvd, Eugene, OR, 97403-1983, USA.
Margaret SibleyUniversity of Washington/Seattle Children's Hospital/Center for Child Health, Behavior, and Development, 2001 8th Ave., Suite 400, Seattle, WA, 98121, USA.
Julie Sarno OwensOhio University, Porter Hall 200, Athens, OH, 45701, USA.
Blake SkidmoreUniversity of Louisville Kent School of Social Work, Patterson Hall, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA.
Laura JohnsonUniversity of Louisville Kent School of Social Work, Patterson Hall, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA.
Catherine P BradshawUniversity of Virginia, Curry School of Education & Human Development, 112-D Bavaro Hall, 417 Emmet Street South, PO Box 400260, Charlottesville, VA, 22904-4260, USA.
Theresa B MoyersCenter on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, & Additions, University of New Mexico, 2650 Yale SE MSC11-6280, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reviews of the motivational interviewing (MI) training literature demonstrate MI is a nuanced skill set that takes carefully planned didactic training, application of skills in context-specific practice settings, and ongoing support to promote reflective practice and sustained proficiency. Despite the robust knowledge base related to training and how MI works to achieve favorable outcomes, these two literature bases are not well integrated. In an effort to inform and guide future research, we propose the mechanisms of motivational interviewing (MMI) conceptual framework, which expands upon previous work. Specifically, the framework adds training as an ongoing process consistent with Bennett-Levy's (Behav Cogn Psychother 34:57-78, 2006) model of skill development and acquisition to the existing two-path framework that helps us to understand how MI works to achieve its desired effects (Magill et al., J Consult Clin Psychol 82:973-983, 2014). Herein, we describe measures used to evaluate the mechanisms within the four MMI framework links: initial training to competency, competency to proficiency, proficiency to talk about change, and talk about change to behavior change. Next, we synthesize the literature associated with each of the mechanisms of the MMI. We conclude by discussing implications for practice and research. This framework offers a more complete path structure to understand the mechanisms of change associated with MI that could improve our understanding of inconsistent effect sizes observed across prior trials evaluating MI effectiveness.

Indexed as

Motivational InterviewingHumansConceptual frameworkInterventionMechanisms of changeMotivationMotivational interviewing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.