Elizabeth J Santa Ana1, Steven D LaRowe2, Mulugeta Gebregziabher3, Antonio A Morgan-Lopez4, Kayla Lamb5, Katherine A Beavis5, Kinfe Bishu6, Steve Martino7. 1. Health Equity and Rural Outreach Innovation Center, Ralph H. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 109 Bee St., Charleston, SC, 29401, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 67 President St., Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. Electronic address: santaana@musc.edu. 2. Mental Health Service Line, James H. Quillen VAMC, 53 Memorial Ave, Johnson City, TN, 37684, USA. 3. Health Equity and Rural Outreach Innovation Center, Ralph H. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 109 Bee St., Charleston, SC, 29401, USA; Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Cannon St., Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. 4. Behavioral Health Research Division, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, 3040 E Cornwallis Rd, Morrisville, NC, 27709, USA. 5. Health Equity and Rural Outreach Innovation Center, Ralph H. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 109 Bee St., Charleston, SC, 29401, USA. 6. Health Equity and Rural Outreach Innovation Center, Ralph H. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 109 Bee St., Charleston, SC, 29401, USA; Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Rutledge Avenue, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. 7. Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, 40 Temple St., New Haven, CT, 06510, USA; VA Connecticut Healthcare System, 950 Campbell Ave, West Haven, CT, 06516, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing delivered in a group format is understudied yet promising as a treatment for substance use disorders (SUD). We evaluated the efficacy of group motivational interviewing (GMI) relative to a treatment-control (TCC) for enhancing treatment and self-help engagement and decreasing alcohol and drug use among veterans with SUD and co-existing psychiatric disorders. METHOD: Veterans (n = 118) with alcohol use disorder were recruited within an outpatient SUD treatment program and randomized to GMI or TCC upon program entry. Alcohol use, SUD treatment, and 12-step session attendance were primary outcomes. Drug use days was the secondary outcome. Participants were assessed at baseline and at one-and three-month follow-up. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between GMI and TCC for binge drinking at both one (RR = .74; 95 % CI [.58, .94]) and three-month follow-up (RR = .74; 95 % CI [.59, .91]). At three-month follow-up, significant differences between treatment conditions were observed for alcohol use days (RR = .79; 95 % CI [.67, .94]), number of SUD treatment sessions (RR = 2.53; 95 % CI [1.99, 3.22]), and 12-step sessions attended (RR = 1.64; 95 % CI [1.35-1.98]). Similarly, we observed significant effects for GMI on reducing alcohol consumption in standard drinks (RR = .49; 95 % CI [.25, .95]). Drug use days declined at each follow-up, with no significant differences between treatment conditions. CONCLUSIONS: GMI delivered at SUD treatment program entry enhanced treatment session and 12-step group attendance and lowered alcohol consumption among outpatient Veterans. Future research should study how GMI works and its effectiveness in SUD treatment settings. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing delivered in a group format is understudied yet promising as a treatment for substance use disorders (SUD). We evaluated the efficacy of group motivational interviewing (GMI) relative to a treatment-control (TCC) for enhancing treatment and self-help engagement and decreasing alcohol and drug use among veterans with SUD and co-existing psychiatric disorders. METHOD: Veterans (n = 118) with alcohol use disorder were recruited within an outpatient SUD treatment program and randomized to GMI or TCC upon program entry. Alcohol use, SUD treatment, and 12-step session attendance were primary outcomes. Drug use days was the secondary outcome. Participants were assessed at baseline and at one-and three-month follow-up. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between GMI and TCC for binge drinking at both one (RR = .74; 95 % CI [.58, .94]) and three-month follow-up (RR = .74; 95 % CI [.59, .91]). At three-month follow-up, significant differences between treatment conditions were observed for alcohol use days (RR = .79; 95 % CI [.67, .94]), number of SUD treatment sessions (RR = 2.53; 95 % CI [1.99, 3.22]), and 12-step sessions attended (RR = 1.64; 95 % CI [1.35-1.98]). Similarly, we observed significant effects for GMI on reducing alcohol consumption in standard drinks (RR = .49; 95 % CI [.25, .95]). Drug use days declined at each follow-up, with no significant differences between treatment conditions. CONCLUSIONS: GMI delivered at SUD treatment program entry enhanced treatment session and 12-step group attendance and lowered alcohol consumption among outpatient Veterans. Future research should study how GMI works and its effectiveness in SUD treatment settings. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dual diagnosis; Group treatment; Motivational interviewing; Substance use disorders; Treatment engagement; Veterans
Authors: Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Delia Voronca; Abeba Teklehaimanot; Elizabeth J Santa Ana Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Geir Smedslund; Rigmor C Berg; Karianne T Hammerstrøm; Asbjørn Steiro; Kari A Leiknes; Helene M Dahl; Kjetil Karlsen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-05-11