Delwyn Catley1, Kathy Goggin2, Kari Jo Harris3, Kimber P Richter4, Karen Williams5, Christi Patten6, Ken Resnicow7, Edward F Ellerbeck4, Andrea Bradley-Ewing8, Hyoung S Lee9, Jose L Moreno10, James E Grobe10. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri. Electronic address: catleyd@umkc.edu. 2. Division of Health Services and Outcomes Research, Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Missouri; Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri. 3. School of Public and Community Health Sciences, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 4. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri. 5. Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 7. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 8. Division of Health Services and Outcomes Research, Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Missouri. 9. School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington. 10. Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite 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. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred fifty-five daily smokers reporting low desire to quit smoking were recruited from an urban community during 2010-2011 and randomly assigned toMotivational Interviewing, health education, or brief advice using a 2:2:1 allocation. Data were analyzed from 2012 to 2014. INTERVENTION: Four 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 MEASURES: Self-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. RESULTS: Unexpectedly, 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). CONCLUSIONS: Although 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 REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01188018.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Despite 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. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Two-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. INTERVENTION: Four 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 MEASURES: Self-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. RESULTS: Unexpectedly, 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). CONCLUSIONS: Although 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 REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01188018.
Authors: Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Kolawole Okuyemi; Nicole Nollen; Won S Choi; Harsohena Kaur; Kim Pulvers; Matthew S Mayo Journal: Addiction Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Kari Jo Harris; Andrea Bradley-Ewing; Kathy Goggin; Kimber P Richter; Christi Patten; Karen Williams; Hyoung S Lee; Vincent S Staggs; Delwyn Catley Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2016-04-13
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Danielle E Deros; Shelby Fallon; Jennifer Stephens; Emily Kim; Tania Lobo; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Jinani Jayasekera; Rafael Meza; Cassandra A Stanton; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Brady McKee; Judith Howell; Michael Ramsaier; Juan Batlle; Ellen Dornelas; Vicky Parikh; Eric Anderson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Andrew T Fox; Laura E Martin; Jared Bruce; Jose L Moreno; Vincent S Staggs; Hyoung S Lee; Kathy Goggin; Kari Jo Harris; Kimber Richter; Christi Patten; Delwyn Catley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Daniel J Amante; Amanda C Blok; Catherine S Nagawa; Jessica G Wijesundara; Jeroan J Allison; Sharina D Person; Jeanne Morley; Joseph Conigliaro; Kristin M Mattocks; Lawrence Garber; Thomas K Houston; Rajani S Sadasivam Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 2.226