Dataset Information

Is the quality of brief motivational interventions for drug use in primary care associated with subsequent drug use?

ABSTRACT: Although a number of brief intervention approaches for drug use are based on motivational interviewing (MI), relatively little is known about whether the quality of motivational interviewing skills is associated with intervention outcomes.The current study examined whether indices of motivational interviewing skill were associated with subsequent drug use outcomes following two different MI-based brief interventions delivered in primary care; a 15 min Brief Negotiated Interview (BNI) and a 45 min adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV). Audio recordings from 351 participants in a randomized controlled trial for drug use in primary care were coded using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale, (MITI Version 3.1.1). Separate negative binomial regression analyses, stratified by intervention condition, were used to examine the associations between six MITI skill variables and the number of days that the participant used his/her main drug 6 weeks after study entry.Only one of the MITI variables (% reflections to questions) was significantly associated with the frequency of drug use in the MOTIV condition and this was opposite to the hypothesized direction (global p=0.01, adjusted IRR 1.50, 95%CI: 1.03-2.20 for middle vs. lowest tertile [higher skill, more drug use]. None were significantly associated with drug use in the BNI condition. Secondary analyses similarly failed to find consistent predictors of better drug outcomes.Overall, this study provides little evidence to suggest that the level of MI intervention skills are linked with better drug use outcomes among people who use drugs and receive brief interventions in primary care. Findings should be considered in light of the fact that data from the study are from negative trial of SBI and was limited to primary care patients. Future work should consider alternative ways of examining these process variables (i.e., comparing thresholds of proficient versus non-proficient skills) or considering alternative methods of coding intervention skills.

SUBMITTER: Palfai TP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4870816 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is the quality of brief motivational interventions for drug use in primary care associated with subsequent drug use?

Palfai Tibor P TP Cheng Debbie M DM Bernstein Judith A JA Palmisano Joseph J Lloyd-Travaglini Christine A CA Goodness Tracie T Saitz Richard R

Addictive behaviors 20160106

<h4>Background</h4>Although a number of brief intervention approaches for drug use are based on motivational interviewing (MI), relatively little is known about whether the quality of motivational interviewing skills is associated with intervention outcomes.<h4>Method</h4>The current study examined whether indices of motivational interviewing skill were associated with subsequent drug use outcomes following two different MI-based brief interventions delivered in primary care; a 15 min Brief Nego ...[more]

PMID: 26779816

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMotivational interviewing (MI) could be a method for minimizing alcohol-related harm. The study aims to assess the effectiveness of a brief intervention, based on a MI, in patients with risky alcohol use attended in Primary Care (PC).Materials and methodsA cluster-randomized, two-arm parallel, multicenter, open-label, controlled clinical trial. Fifty PC healthcare professionals from the province of Córdoba (Spain) will be randomized to one of the two study groups: (1) Experimental Group (EG): MI-based approach; (2) Control Group (CG): Usual care based on health advice. EG intervention: Professionals will receive a training program focused on MI, consisting of a training workshop and the use of pre- and post-workshop questionnaires to measure knowledge and skills acquired, as well as the degree of empathy, with a videotape of the health professionals with standardized patients, before and after the workshop, and subsequent training feedback. CG intervention: Workshop on the management of risky alcohol use based on health advice; participants will also complete the pre-and post-workshop questionnaires and be videotaped. Study population: Patients ≥ 14 years old with risky alcohol consumption (28 Standard Drink Units-SDU-/week in men and 17 SDU/week in women) or excessive alcohol use (≥ 6 SDU in men or ≥ 4 SDU in women, in less than 2 h). It would be necessary to include 110 subjects/group to find a difference of 20% between the percentage of patients in abstinence between EG (37%) and CG (20%), alpha error of 5%, and statistical power of 80%. Assuming a loss rate of 5% and the cluster design effect, the number of subjects to be recruited is estimated at 197/group. The follow-up period will be 12 months. The primary outcome variables will be the self-reported alcohol use level and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaire score.DiscussionThe study aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of the motivational approach in the comprehensive treatment of the patient with risky alcohol use, improving the empathy of the healthcare professionals and strengthening the healthcare professional-patient relationship to achieve the behavioral change of the patients with this problem in primary care consultations.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:BackgroundHarmful alcohol use is a leading cause of global disability and death. However, increased detection and brief intervention capacity of more severe alcohol use disorders has not been accompanied by increased availability of treatment services. Incorporating treatment for such disorders into primary care is of paramount importance for improving access and health outcomes. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness of a Brief Motivational Treatment (BMT) applied in primary care for treatment of these disorders.MethodsA parallel-group, single-blinded, severity-stratified, randomized clinical trial will test the superiority of BMT over enhanced usual care. Eligible participants will be those seeking treatment and who fulfill DSM-V criteria for alcohol use disorder and criteria for harmful alcohol use. With an estimated a loss to follow-up of 20%, a total of 182 participants will be recruited and equally randomized to each treatment group. The intervention group will receive an adaptation of the motivational enhancement therapy, as manualized in Project MATCH. This treatment consists of four 45-min sessions provided by a general psychologist with at least 3 years of primary care experience. The primary outcome is the change from baseline in the drinks per drinking day during the last 90 days, which will be captured using the Timeline Follow Back method. Secondary outcomes will describe the changes in alcohol use pattern, motivational status, and severity of the disorder. All participants will be analyzed according to the group they were allocated, regardless of the treatment actually received. Mean differences (MD) will be computed for continuous outcomes and relative risks (RR) and RR reductions (RRR) for dichotomous results. Linear models will deliver the subgroup analyses. Missingness is assumed to be associated with the baseline alcohol use pattern and severity, so a multiple imputation method will be used to handle missing data.DiscussionThis trial aims to test the superiority of BMT over enhanced usual care with a reasonable superiority margin, over which the BMT could be further considered for incorporation into PC in Chile. Its pragmatic approach ultimately aims to inform policymakers about the benefit of including a brief psychosocial treatment into PC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345302 . Registered on 28 April 2020.

Project description:ImportanceThe United States has invested substantially in screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse, based in part on evidence of efficacy for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it is not a recommended universal preventive service in primary care because of lack of evidence of efficacy.ObjectiveTo test the efficacy of 2 brief counseling interventions for unhealthy drug use (any illicit drug use or prescription drug misuse)-a brief negotiated interview (BNI) and an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV)-compared with no brief intervention.Design, setting, and participantsThis 3-group randomized trial took place at an urban hospital-based primary care internal medicine practice; 528 adult primary care patients with drug use (Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] substance-specific scores of ≥4) were identified by screening between June 2009 and January 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts.InterventionsTwo interventions were tested: the BNI is a 10- to 15-minute structured interview conducted by health educators; the MOTIV is a 30- to 45-minute intervention based on motivational interviewing with a 20- to 30-minute booster conducted by master's-level counselors. All study participants received a written list of substance use disorder treatment and mutual help resources.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was number of days of use in the past 30 days of the self-identified main drug as determined by a validated calendar method at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included other self-reported measures of drug use, drug use according to hair testing, ASSIST scores (severity), drug use consequences, unsafe sex, mutual help meeting attendance, and health care utilization.ResultsAt baseline, 63% of participants reported their main drug was marijuana, 19% cocaine, and 17% opioids. At 6 months, 98% completed follow-up. Mean adjusted number of days using the main drug at 6 months was 12 for no brief intervention vs 11 for the BNI group (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22) and 12 for the MOTIV group (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .81 for both comparisons vs no brief intervention). There were also no significant effects of BNI or MOTIV on any other outcome or in analyses stratified by main drug or drug use severity.Conclusions and relevanceBrief intervention did not have efficacy for decreasing unhealthy drug use in primary care patients identified by screening. These results do not support widespread implementation of illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse screening and brief intervention.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00876941.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance).ObjectiveTo determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points.InterventionsParticipants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior.ResultsMean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceA one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.

Dataset Information

Is the quality of brief motivational interventions for drug use in primary care associated with subsequent drug use?

Publications

Is the quality of brief motivational interventions for drug use in primary care associated with subsequent drug use?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets