BACKGROUND:Motivational interviewing is a technique used to promote change in addictive behaviour, initially used to treat alcoholism. Despite this, its effectiveness has not been sufficiently demonstrated for giving up smoking. AIM: The aim of the study was to establish whether motivational interviewing, compared with anti-smoking advice, is more effective for giving up the habit. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care in Albecete, Spain. METHOD: Random experimental study of 200 smokers assigned to two types ofinterventions: anti-smoking advice (n = 86) and motivational interviewing (n = 114). Subjects in both groups were offered bupropion when nicotine dependency was high (Fagerström score >7). The success rate was evaluated by intention to treat; point prevalence abstinence was measured 6 and 12 months post intervention by personal testimony, confirmed by means of CO-oximetry (value < 6ppm). RESULTS: The measure of effectiveness of the treatment for giving up smoking after both 6 and 12 months, showed that the motivational interviewing action was 5.2 times higher than anti-smoking advice (18.4 % compared to 3.4%; 95% confidence interval = 1.63 to 17.13). CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that motivational interviewing is more effective than brief advice for giving up smoking.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing is a technique used to promote change in addictive behaviour, initially used to treat alcoholism. Despite this, its effectiveness has not been sufficiently demonstrated for giving up smoking. AIM: The aim of the study was to establish whether motivational interviewing, compared with anti-smoking advice, is more effective for giving up the habit. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care in Albecete, Spain. METHOD: Random experimental study of 200 smokers assigned to two types of interventions: anti-smoking advice (n = 86) and motivational interviewing (n = 114). Subjects in both groups were offered bupropion when nicotine dependency was high (Fagerström score >7). The success rate was evaluated by intention to treat; point prevalence abstinence was measured 6 and 12 months post intervention by personal testimony, confirmed by means of CO-oximetry (value < 6ppm). RESULTS: The measure of effectiveness of the treatment for giving up smoking after both 6 and 12 months, showed that the motivational interviewing action was 5.2 times higher than anti-smoking advice (18.4 % compared to 3.4%; 95% confidence interval = 1.63 to 17.13). CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that motivational interviewing is more effective than brief advice for giving up smoking.
Authors: J R Banegas Banegas; L Díez Gañán; F Rodríguez-Artalejo; J González Enríquez; A Graciani Pérez-Regadera; F Villar Alvarez Journal: Med Clin (Barc) Date: 2001-12-01 Impact factor: 1.725
Authors: Maria Ramos; Joana Ripoll; Teresa Estrades; Isabel Socias; Antonia Fe; Rosa Duro; Maria José González; Margarita Servera Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Natalie Sachs-Ericsson; Norman B Schmidt; Michael J Zvolensky; Melissa Mitchell; Nicole Collins; Dan G Blazer Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Stefan Andreas; Thomas Hering; Stephan Mühlig; Dennis Nowak; Tobias Raupach; Heinrich Worth Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2009-04-17 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Beth C Bock; George D Papandonatos; Marcel A de Dios; David B Abrams; Munawar M Azam; Mark Fagan; Patrick J Sweeney; Michael D Stein; Raymond Niaura Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Damaris J Rohsenow; Rosemarie A Martin; Peter M Monti; Suzanne M Colby; Anne M Day; David B Abrams; Alan D Sirota; Robert M Swift Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2013-10-14