OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) interventions for adolescent substance use behavior change. METHOD: Literature searches of electronic databases were undertaken in addition to manual reference searches of identified review articles. Databases searched include PsycINFO, PUBMED/MEDLINE, and Educational Resources Information Center. Twenty-one independent studies, representing 5,471 participants, were located and analyzed. RESULTS: An omnibus weighted mean effect size for all identified MI interventions revealed a small, but significant, posttreatment effect size (mean d = .173, 95% CI [.094, .252], n = 21). Small, but significant, effect sizes were observed at follow-up suggesting that MI interventions for adolescent substance use retain their effect over time. MI interventions were effective across a variety of substance use behaviors, varying session lengths, and different settings, and for interventions that used clinicians with different levels of education. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of MI interventions for adolescent substance use behavior change is supported by this meta-analytic review. In consideration of these results, as well as the larger literature, MI should be considered as a treatment for adolescent substance use.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) interventions for adolescent substance use behavior change. METHOD: Literature searches of electronic databases were undertaken in addition to manual reference searches of identified review articles. Databases searched include PsycINFO, PUBMED/MEDLINE, and Educational Resources Information Center. Twenty-one independent studies, representing 5,471 participants, were located and analyzed. RESULTS: An omnibus weighted mean effect size for all identified MI interventions revealed a small, but significant, posttreatment effect size (mean d = .173, 95% CI [.094, .252], n = 21). Small, but significant, effect sizes were observed at follow-up suggesting that MI interventions for adolescent substance use retain their effect over time. MI interventions were effective across a variety of substance use behaviors, varying session lengths, and different settings, and for interventions that used clinicians with different levels of education. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of MI interventions for adolescent substance use behavior change is supported by this meta-analytic review. In consideration of these results, as well as the larger literature, MI should be considered as a treatment for adolescent substance use.
Authors: Elizabeth J D'Amico; Jon M Houck; Sarah B Hunter; Jeremy N V Miles; Karen Chan Osilla; Brett A Ewing Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2014-11-03
Authors: Elizabeth J D'Amico; Karen C Osilla; Jeremy N V Miles; Brett Ewing; Kristen Sullivan; Kristin Katz; Sarah B Hunter Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2012-05-28
Authors: Lindsay M Squeglia; Nathaniel L Baker; Erin A McClure; Rachel L Tomko; Vitria Adisetiyo; Kevin M Gray Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Elizabeth Barnett; Theresa B Moyers; Steve Sussman; Caitlin Smith; Louise A Rohrbach; Ping Sun; Donna Spruijt-Metz Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2013-12-02
Authors: Elizabeth J D'Amico; Layla Parast; Lisa S Meredith; Brett A Ewing; William G Shadel; Bradley D Stein Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 7.124