Dataset Information

Race moderates the effects of Motivational Interviewing on smoking cessation induction.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Health disparities necessitate exploration of how race moderates response to smoking cessation treatment. Data from a randomized clinical trial of Motivational Interviewing (MI) for smoking cessation induction were used to explore differential treatment response between African American (AA) vs Non-Black (NB) smokers.

Methods

Adult tobacco smokers (138 AA vs 66 NB) with low desire to quit were randomly assigned to four sessions of MI or health education (HE). Outcomes (e.g., quit attempts) were assessed 3- and 6-months.

Results

There was evidence of a Race by Treatment interaction such that MI was less effective than HE in AA smokers. Mean Cohen's d for the interaction effect was -0.32 (95% CI [-0.44, -0.20]). However, the race interaction could be accounted for by controlling for baseline relationship status and communication preference (wants directive approach).

Conclusions

MI may be less effective for smoking cessation induction in AA vs NB smokers when compared to another active and more directive therapy. The differential response between races may be explained by psychosocial variables.

Practice implications

MI may not be an ideal choice for all African American smokers. Patients' relationship status and preference for a directive counseling approach might explain disparities in response to MI treatment.

SUBMITTER: Grobe JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7012686 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Race moderates the effects of Motivational Interviewing on smoking cessation induction.

Grobe James E JE Goggin Kathy K Harris Kari Jo KJ Richter Kimber P KP Resnicow Ken K Catley Delwyn D

Patient education and counseling 20190818 2

<h4>Objective</h4>Health disparities necessitate exploration of how race moderates response to smoking cessation treatment. Data from a randomized clinical trial of Motivational Interviewing (MI) for smoking cessation induction were used to explore differential treatment response between African American (AA) vs Non-Black (NB) smokers.<h4>Methods</h4>Adult tobacco smokers (138 AA vs 66 NB) with low desire to quit were randomly assigned to four sessions of MI or health education (HE). Outcomes (e ...[more]

PMID: 31466882

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDespite limitations in evidence, the current Clinical Practice Guideline advocates Motivational Interviewing for smokers not ready to quit. This study evaluated the efficacy of Motivational Interviewing for inducing cessation-related behaviors among smokers with low motivation to quit.DesignRandomized clinical trial.Setting/participantsTwo-hundred fifty-five daily smokers reporting low desire to quit smoking were recruited from an urban community during 2010-2011 and randomly assigned to Motivational Interviewing, health education, or brief advice using a 2:2:1 allocation. Data were analyzed from 2012 to 2014.InterventionFour sessions of Motivational Interviewing utilized a patient-centered communication style that explored patients' own reasons for change. Four sessions of health education provided education related to smoking cessation while excluding elements characteristic of Motivational Interviewing. A single session of brief advice consisted of brief, personalized advice to quit.Main outcomes measuresSelf-reported quit attempts; smoking abstinence (biochemically verified); use of cessation pharmacotherapies; motivation; and confidence to quit were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-ups.ResultsUnexpectedly, no significant differences emerged between groups in the proportion who made a quit attempt by 6-month follow-up (Motivational Interviewing, 52.0%; health education, 60.8%; brief advice, 45.1%; p=0.157). Health education had significantly higher biochemically verified abstinence rates at 6 months (7.8%) than brief advice (0.0%) (8% risk difference, 95% CI=3%, 13%, p=0.003), with the Motivational Interviewing group falling in between (2.9% abstinent, 3% risk difference, 95% CI=0%, 6%, p=0.079). Both Motivational Interviewing and health education groups showed greater increases in cessation medication use, motivation, and confidence to quit relative to brief advice (all p<0.05), and health education showed greater increases in motivation relative to Motivational Interviewing (Cohen's d=0.36, 95% CI=0.12, 0.60).ConclusionsAlthough Motivational Interviewing was generally more efficacious than brief advice in inducing cessation behaviors, health education appeared the most efficacious. These results highlight the need to identify the contexts in which Motivational Interviewing may be most efficacious and question recommendations to use Motivational Interviewing rather than other less complex cessation induction interventions.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01188018.

Project description:Background: For patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), smoking is an important risk factor for the recurrence of a cardiovascular event. Motivational interviewing (MI) may increase the motivation of the smokers to stop smoking. Data on MI for smoking cessation in patients with CAD are limited, and the active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI in smoking cessation are largely unknown. Therefore, this study was designed to explore active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI for smoking cessation in smokers with CAD, shortly after a cardiovascular event. Methods: We conducted a qualitative multiple case study of 24 patients with CAD who participated in a randomized trial on lifestyle change. One hundred and nine audio-recorded MI sessions were coded with a combination of the sequential code for observing process exchanges (SCOPE) and the motivational interviewing skill code (MISC). The analysis of the cases consisted of three phases: single case analysis, cross-case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. In a quantitative sequential analysis, we calculated the transition probabilities between the use of MI techniques by the coaches and the subsequent patient statements concerning smoking cessation. Results: In 12 cases, we observed ingredients that appeared to activate the mechanisms of change. Active ingredients were compositions of behaviors of the coaches (e.g., supporting self-efficacy and supporting autonomy) and patient reactions (e.g., in-depth self-exploration and change talk), interacting over large parts of an MI session. The composition of active ingredients differed among cases, as the patient process and the MI-coaching strategy differed. Particularly, change talk and self-efficacy appeared to stimulate the mechanisms of change "arguing oneself into change" and "increasing self-efficacy/confidence." Conclusion: Harnessing active ingredients that target the mechanisms of change "increasing self-efficacy" and "arguing oneself into change" is a good MI strategy for smoking cessation, because it addresses the ambivalence of a patient toward his/her ability to quit, while, after the actual cessation, maintaining the feeling of urgency to persist in not smoking in the patient.

Dataset Information

Race moderates the effects of Motivational Interviewing on smoking cessation induction.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Practice implications

Publications

Race moderates the effects of Motivational Interviewing on smoking cessation induction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets