Dataset Information

Development and differentiability of three brief interventions for risky alcohol use that include varying doses of motivational interviewing.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:While brief intervention (BI) for risky alcohol use generally yields positive effects among those identified by screening, effect sizes are small and there is unexplained heterogeneity in outcome. The heterogeneity may be related to differences in intervention style and content, including elements of motivational interviewing (MI). To date, it has been difficult to interpret the role of MI in BI and these gaps in knowledge interfere with efforts to train, disseminate and implement BI that retains and maximizes efficacy. This study sought to develop BI protocols with varying doses of MI and test their differentiability. Differentiable BI protocols could allow for future studies that prospectively evaluate the role MI plays in affecting BI outcome. METHODS:We developed three intervention protocols: brief advice, standard BI (NIAAA Clinician's Guide), and MI-enhanced BI and administered them to 45 primary care patients who reported exceeding recommended drinking limits. We then rated the BI sessions for fidelity to the assigned protocol as well as MI consistency based on Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) scale scores. The differentiability of BI protocols was determined by calculating fidelity to assigned protocols and comparing MITI scores using pairwise, Tukey-adjusted comparisons of least squares mean scores. RESULTS:High rates of fidelity to each protocol were achieved. The three BI protocols were also highly differentiable based on MITI scores. CONCLUSIONS:The three interventions can be used in future trials to prospectively examine the role MI has in determining BI outcome. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT02978027, retrospectively registered 11/28/16.

SUBMITTER: Hettema JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5828117 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and differentiability of three brief interventions for risky alcohol use that include varying doses of motivational interviewing.

Hettema Jennifer E JE Cockrell Stephanie A SA Reeves Abigail A Ingersoll Karen S KS Lum Paula J PJ Saitz Richard R Murray-Krezan Cristina M CM Carrejo Valerie A VA

Addiction science & clinical practice 20180227 1

<h4>Background</h4>While brief intervention (BI) for risky alcohol use generally yields positive effects among those identified by screening, effect sizes are small and there is unexplained heterogeneity in outcome. The heterogeneity may be related to differences in intervention style and content, including elements of motivational interviewing (MI). To date, it has been difficult to interpret the role of MI in BI and these gaps in knowledge interfere with efforts to train, disseminate and imple ...[more]

PMID: 29482632

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:BackgroundAlcohol-induced blackouts, a form of anterograde amnesia that restricts the encoding of short-term memories into long-term ones, are among the most severe alcohol-related consequences. College students are at high risk of experiencing alcohol-induced blackouts, and there is a need to determine whether alcohol interventions can effectively reduce blackouts in this population. The current study uses data from 3 randomized clinical trials to examine the effect of various intervention approaches on alcohol-induced blackouts.MethodsFour interventions were compared over 3 studies: (i) a computerized feedback intervention (electronic Check-Up To Go [e-Chug]; Study 1); (ii) a single-session brief motivational intervention (BMI; Study 1); (iii) a BMI plus behavioral economic session focused on increasing substance-free activities (BMI + Substance-Free Activity Session [SFAS]; Studies 2 and 3); and (iv) a BMI plus supplemental Relaxation Training session (BMI + Relaxation Training; Studies 2 and 3). Studies 1 and 3 also included an assessment-only control condition. For each study, participants reported whether they had experienced an alcohol-induced blackout at each time point; binary logistic regressions examined differential likelihood of experiencing an alcohol-induced blackout over time.ResultsNeither the single-session BMI nor e-Chug reduced alcohol-induced blackouts over assessment only; however, participants in the BMI + SFAS or BMI + Relaxation Training condition were significantly less likely to experience an alcohol-induced blackout compared to assessment only at 1-month (Wald = 4.77, odds ratio [OR] = 0.53, p = 0.03) and 6-month follow-ups (Wald = 5.72, OR = 0.52, p = 0.02). Study 2 also revealed a larger effect for the BMI + SFAS over the BMI + Relaxation Training condition at 6 months (Wald = 4.11 OR = 0.22, p = 0.043), although this was not replicated in Study 3. The effects for the 2-session BMIs lasted 6 months, at which point maturation effects diminished differences between assessment-only and intervention conditions.ConclusionsTwo sessions of BMI are a substantial enough dose to result in reductions in alcohol-induced blackouts among college student heavy drinkers.

Dataset Information

Development and differentiability of three brief interventions for risky alcohol use that include varying doses of motivational interviewing.

Publications

Development and differentiability of three brief interventions for risky alcohol use that include varying doses of motivational interviewing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets