Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40279644›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2025

Impact of Computer-Mediated Versus Face-to-Face Motivational-Type Interviews on Participants' Language and Subsequent Cannabis Use: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Karla D Llanes, Jon Amastae, Paul C Amrhein, Nadra Lisha, Katherina Arteaga, Eugene Lopez, Roberto A Moran, Lawrence D Cohn

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06945471 (Impact of Computer-Mediated Versus Face-to-Face Motivational-Type Interviews on Participants' Language and Subsequent Cannabis Use), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT06945471 nacompletednot on this map

Impact of Computer-Mediated Versus Face-to-Face Motivational-Type Interviews on Participants' Language and Subsequent Cannabis Use: Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Texas, El PasoRan2014 to 2019Enrolled150ConditionsMarijuana UseArms1) Face-to-face, and 2) Computer-mediated motivational type interviews
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Karla D LlanesCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0005-7299
Jon AmastaeDepartment of Language and Linguistics, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-9355-6080
Paul C AmrheinDepartment of Psychology, Montclair University, Montclair, NJ, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-0206-7809
Nadra LishaCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8357-8961
Katherina ArteagaDepartment of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwaters, OK, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1923-0036
Eugene LopezDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-7147-184X
Roberto A MoranDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-2149-631X
Lawrence D CohnDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3212-7121

Funding

Postdoctoral training in tobacco controlT32CA113710 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
UTEP DIDARP: Vulnerability Issues in Drug Abuse (VIDA)R24DA029989 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS EL PASO · PI CASTANEDA, EDWARD · 2011 to 2015
$2.1M
Postdoctoral training in tobacco controlT32DA057216 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Dorothy Elinor Apollonio, Pamela May Ling · 2023 to 2026
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA113710NIDA NIH HHS R24 DA029989NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA057216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMotivational interviewing (MI) is frequently used to facilitate behavior change. The use of change talk during motivational interviews can predict subsequent behavior change. However, no studies have compared the information obtained from traditional face-to-face motivational interviews and computer-mediated motivational interviews or resulted in the same amount of behavior change.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate if face-to-face motivational-type interviews (MTIs) and computer-mediated MTIs elicit the same amount of "change talk" and behavior change when young adults discuss their ambivalence about using marijuana.

methodsA total of 150 users, including frequent marijuana users, occasional marijuana users, and non-marijuana users, participated in the study. All participants reported being at least moderately ambivalent about their current level of marijuana use. Participants were randomly assigned to complete a brief MTI using either the standard face-to-face format or a computer-mediated format. Amrhein's manual for assessing the presence of "change talk" and "sustain talk" was used to code the language produced by respondents in each interview format. A reduction in marijuana use was assessed at a 2-month follow-up.

resultsThe word count was significantly higher in face-to-face MTIs compared with computer-mediated MTIs (P<.001). After controlling for verbosity, face-to-face MTIs, and computer-mediated MTIs did not differ statistically in the overall amount of change talk (P=.47) and sustain talk (P=.05). Face-to-face MTIs elicited significantly more reasons for reducing future marijuana use (ie, change talk; P=.02) and readiness toward not using marijuana (ie, change talk; P=.009), even after controlling for verbosity. However, these differences were not statistically significant after using a conservative Bonferroni correction (P<.004). After controlling for marijuana use at Time 1, the relationship between the strength of commitment language at Time 1 and marijuana use at Time 2 was not statistically significant (semipartial correlation r=0.03, P=.57). The association between Time 1 change talk and Time 2 marijuana use depended on the type of motivational interview that participants experienced: face-to-face MTI versus computer-mediated MTI (B=0.45, P=.01). A negative binomial regression with a log link function was used to probe this relationship after controlling for 2 covariates: gender and Time 1 (baseline assessment) marijuana use. Among participants in the face-to-face MTI condition, Time 2 (follow-up) marijuana use decreased as the strength of Time 1 change talk increased, although this finding was not significant (B=-0.21, P=.08). However, among participants in the computer-mediated MTI condition, Time 2 marijuana use was not significantly related to the strength of Time 1 change talk (B=0.13, P=.16).

conclusionsComputer-mediated MTIs and face-to-face MTIs elicit both change talk and sustain talk, which suggests that motivational interviews could potentially be adapted for delivery via text-based computer platforms. However, further research is needed to enhance the predictive validity of the type of language obtained via computer-delivered MI.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06945471; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06945471.

Indexed as

Interviews as TopicLanguageMotivationMotivational InterviewingAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMarijuana AbuseYoung Adultbehavior changecannabis usechange talkcommitment languagecomputer-mediatedmarijuana usemarijuana usersmotivational interviewsrandomized studysubstance usesustain talkyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID40279644
PMCPMC12064966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.