Trial reportJournal of substance abuse treatment2022
What can clients tell us about whether to use motivational interviewing? An analysis of early-session ambivalent language.
Trial report in Journal of substance abuse treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Current State of Alcohol Screening and Management in Virginia Primary Care Practices: An Evaluation of Preventive Service Use.The Medical clinics of North America · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough motivational interviewing (MI) is an effective method for promoting change in problematic alcohol and other drug use, it does not benefit all clients. Clinicians have little empirical guidance on who is likely to benefit from MI and who is not. We hypothesized that differences in clients' spontaneously offered language early in the session would predict their responsiveness to MI during the remainder of the session.
methodThe study obtained coding data from 125 counseling sessions from a large randomized controlled trial of clinician training. A cluster analysis created one group of clients whose language reflected ambivalence, and one group whose language reflected readiness to change. We conducted a univariate analysis of variance to compare the mean change in percent change talk across the session between groups.
resultsClients whose language reflected ambivalence early in the session had a greater change in their percent change talk during the remainder of the session, compared to those whose language reflected greater readiness to change (F (1,90) = 63.02, t = 7.94, p < .001). Surprisingly, the group whose language reflected readiness had a decrease in their percent change talk during the remainder of the session (M = -10.9%, SD = 16.3%). Adjusting the results for regression to the mean effects did not eliminate these differences.
conclusionClients' language early in the session may offer clinicians some guidance on whether MI is likely to be useful or counterproductive in the treatment of substance use disorder.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.