ArticleJournal of consulting and clinical psychology2024
Do improvements in motivational language predict alcohol use in motivational interviewing? Ambivalence matters.
Article in Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMotivational Interviewing (MI) is described as a method for improving clinical outcomes by reducing client ambivalence. If this is true, MI's focus on improving clients' motivational language should be most useful for clients with ambivalence about change and less valuable for those who are ready to implement new behaviors or are opposed to change. To address this hypothesis and potentially add precision to MI delivery in clinical settings, we tested whether the relationship between clients' in-session motivational language and posttreatment alcohol use depended on their baseline motivation to change.
methodClient speech from 149 sessions from Project MATCH were analyzed. A cluster analysis of the percent change talk during the first decile of the session identified three motivational groups: opposed, ambivalent, and ready. The change in percent change talk (C-PCT) across the session was calculated for each group. Zero-inflated negative binomial analysis was used to test whether the effect of C-PCT on end-of-treatment drinking varied between motivational groups.
resultsThe count part of the model revealed a significant interaction between C-PCT and membership in the ambivalent group (b = -17.710, 95% CI [-25.775, -9.645], p < .001), only for those who received MI. Favorable C-PCT was associated with less drinking (b = -15.735, p = .004). Only baseline drinking was a significant predictor of abstinence at follow-up (b = .032, 95% CI [0.012, 0.051], p = .001).
conclusionA putative MI mechanism-improved client motivational language-appears most important for clients who express ambivalence in the opening minutes of the session, with minimal value for those who do not. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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.