OBJECTIVE: The study sought to assess the effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing (MI) interventions in reducing alcohol consumption among college students, as compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. It also sought to identify the potential moderators to MI intervention effects. DATA SOURCE: Database sources consulted included Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLE, PsycLIT, CINAHL, and MEDLINE. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Included studies were (1) underpinned by experimental, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental designs; (2) studies in which participants were either college males only or females only or both; and (3) studies in which adaptations of MI were based on key MI principles. Excluded studies were (1) non-English language studies; (2) studies not published from 2000-2012; (3) studies in which participants were not college students; (4) studies in which intervention was not delivered by face-to-face approach; and (5) studies that failed to embark on postintervention follow-ups. DATA EXTRACTION: A total of 115 abstracts were screened. These were narrowed down to 13 studies from which data for the study were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Selected studies were underpinned by experimental, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental designs. Owing to the heterogeneity in selected studies, a narrative synthesis was used. RESULTS: MI interventions were found to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption among college students, when compared to alternative interventions or no intervention. Potential moderators of MI intervention effects were identified to include practitioner's adherence to MI techniques and individual's drinking motives. CONCLUSION: MI presents itself as a promising tool that can augment the many existing social-environmental strategies of health promotion.
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to assess the effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing (MI) interventions in reducing alcohol consumption among college students, as compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. It also sought to identify the potential moderators to MI intervention effects. DATA SOURCE: Database sources consulted included Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLE, PsycLIT, CINAHL, and MEDLINE. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Included studies were (1) underpinned by experimental, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental designs; (2) studies in which participants were either college males only or females only or both; and (3) studies in which adaptations of MI were based on key MI principles. Excluded studies were (1) non-English language studies; (2) studies not published from 2000-2012; (3) studies in which participants were not college students; (4) studies in which intervention was not delivered by face-to-face approach; and (5) studies that failed to embark on postintervention follow-ups. DATA EXTRACTION: A total of 115 abstracts were screened. These were narrowed down to 13 studies from which data for the study were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Selected studies were underpinned by experimental, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental designs. Owing to the heterogeneity in selected studies, a narrative synthesis was used. RESULTS: MI interventions were found to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption among college students, when compared to alternative interventions or no intervention. Potential moderators of MI intervention effects were identified to include practitioner's adherence to MI techniques and individual's drinking motives. CONCLUSION: MI presents itself as a promising tool that can augment the many existing social-environmental strategies of health promotion.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alcohol; College; Health Promotion; Health focus: alcohol abuse; Manuscript format: literature review; Motivational Interviewing; Setting: school; Strategy: education, behavior change; Students; Target population age: youth; Target population circumstances: college level, all income levels, all developed countries, all races/ethnicities
Authors: Michael D Stein; Celeste M Caviness; Emily F Morse; Kristin R Grimone; Daniel Audet; Debra S Herman; Ethan Moitra; Bradley J Anderson Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Arnaud Gagneur; Thomas Lemaître; Virginie Gosselin; Anne Farrands; Nathalie Carrier; Geneviève Petit; Louis Valiquette; Philippe De Wals Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Pavel Dietz; Jennifer L Reichel; Dennis Edelmann; Antonia M Werner; Ana Nanette Tibubos; Markus Schäfer; Perikles Simon; Stephan Letzel; Daniel Pfirrmann Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-04-28