Rebecca M Shingleton1, Tibor P Palfai2. 1. Department and Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, USA. Electronic address: rshingleton@gmail.com. 2. Department and Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, USA. Electronic address: palfai@bu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this paper were to describe and evaluate the methods and efficacy of technology-delivered motivational interviewing interventions (TAMIs), discuss the challenges and opportunities of TAMIs, and provide a framework for future research. METHODS: We reviewed studies that reported using motivational interviewing (MI) based components delivered via technology and conducted ratings on technology description, comprehensiveness of MI, and study methods. RESULTS: The majority of studies were fully-automated and included at least one form of media rich technology to deliver the TAMI. Few studies provided complete descriptions of how MI components were delivered via technology. Of the studies that isolated the TAMI effects, positive changes were reported. CONCLUSION: Researchers have used a range of technologies to deliver TAMIs suggesting feasibility of these methods. However, there are limited data regarding their efficacy, and strategies to deliver relational components remain a challenge. Future research should better characterize the components of TAMIs, empirically test the efficacy of TAMIs with randomized controlled trials, and incorporate fidelity measures. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: TAMIs are feasible to implement and well accepted. These approaches offer considerable potential to reduce costs, minimize therapist and training burden, and expand the range of clients that may benefit from adaptations of MI. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this paper were to describe and evaluate the methods and efficacy of technology-delivered motivational interviewing interventions (TAMIs), discuss the challenges and opportunities of TAMIs, and provide a framework for future research. METHODS: We reviewed studies that reported using motivational interviewing (MI) based components delivered via technology and conducted ratings on technology description, comprehensiveness of MI, and study methods. RESULTS: The majority of studies were fully-automated and included at least one form of media rich technology to deliver the TAMI. Few studies provided complete descriptions of how MI components were delivered via technology. Of the studies that isolated the TAMI effects, positive changes were reported. CONCLUSION: Researchers have used a range of technologies to deliver TAMIs suggesting feasibility of these methods. However, there are limited data regarding their efficacy, and strategies to deliver relational components remain a challenge. Future research should better characterize the components of TAMIs, empirically test the efficacy of TAMIs with randomized controlled trials, and incorporate fidelity measures. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: TAMIs are feasible to implement and well accepted. These approaches offer considerable potential to reduce costs, minimize therapist and training burden, and expand the range of clients that may benefit from adaptations of MI. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Authors: Theodore L Wagener; Thad R Leffingwell; Joe Mignogna; Melissa R Mignogna; Cameron C Weaver; Nathaniel J Cooney; Kasey R Claborn Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2011-12-23
Authors: Robert P Nolan; Sam Liu; J Kevin Shoemaker; Vladimir Hachinski; Hazel Lynn; David J Mikulis; Richard A Wennberg; Margaret Moy Lum-Kwong; Ahmad Zbib Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Rebecca M Cunningham; Stephen T Chermack; Marc A Zimmerman; Jean T Shope; C Raymond Bingham; Frederic C Blow; Maureen A Walton Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-05-21 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: C Raymond Bingham; Andrea Ippel Barretto; Maureen A Walton; Christopher M Bryant; Jean T Shope; Trivellore E Raghunathan Journal: J Drug Educ Date: 2011
Authors: Elke D ter Huurne; Marloes G Postel; Hein A de Haan; Constance H C Drossaert; Cor A J DeJong Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sarah J Miller; Jamilia R Sly; Kemi B Gaffney; Zhiye Jiang; Brittney Henry; Lina Jandorf Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Marina C Fodor; Emily R Grekin; Jessica R Beatty; Lucy McGoron; Steven J Ondersma Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Kevin E O'Grady; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Steven J Ondersma; Robert P Schwartz Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.702