Efficacy of an emergency department-based motivational teenage smoking intervention.

West Virginia University, Department of Community Medicine, Prevention Research Center, Office of Drug Abuse Intervention Studies, P.O. Box 9190, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.
Preventing chronic disease (Impact Factor: 1.96). 02/2007; 4(1):A08.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Motivational interviewing techniques have been minimally researched as a function of a teenage smoking intervention. The present study examined the efficacy of a theory-based motivational tobacco intervention (MTI).
A randomized two-group design was used to compare 6-month post-baseline quit and reduction rates among teenagers who received the MTI with those who received brief advice or care as usual. Participants were smokers aged 14 to 19 years (N = 75) who presented for treatment in a university-affiliated hospital emergency department (ED). Motivational interviewing techniques were used by trained providers to facilitate individual change; stage-based take-home materials also were provided.
Similar to past clinic-based studies of motivational interviewing with teenage smokers, our study found negative results in terms of intervention efficacy for cessation. Six-month follow-up cessation rates were nonsignificant--two teenagers quit smoking. Among teenagers who were available at follow-up, a medium effect size (Cohen's h = .38) was found for reduction and a large effect size (Cohen's h = .69) was found for percentage reduction, although these results also were not statistically significant.
Although the major findings of this study were not significant, the reductions in tobacco use suggest that motivational interviewing may be a clinically relevant counseling model for use in teenage smoking interventions. However, many questions remain, and the current literature lacks studies on trials with significant outcomes using motivational interviewing in smoking cessation. Additionally, more research is needed to examine the suitability of the ED for MTI-type interventions.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Suboptimal regimen adherence among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a common challenge for patients, families, and providers. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a brief communication style designed to elicit intrinsic motivation and strengthen commitment to behavior change goals. As pediatric MI research expands, a critical review of its evidence base and applicability to promote adherence behaviors for youth with T1D is needed. This review introduces the core tenets of MI and clinical applications in T1D, synthesizes the existing MI research in T1D, and discusses the next steps in MI research. Overall, mixed results for MI interventions in T1D reflect variations in research study design and clinical implementation. Targeting adherence rather than glycemic outcomes typically demonstrates greater results, highlighting the promise of MI to facilitate meaningful and enduring improvements in youths' T1D adherence behaviors.
    Current Diabetes Reports 10/2014; 14(10):531. DOI:10.1007/s11892-014-0531-z · 3.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background There is evidence that children's decisions to smoke are influenced by family and friends.Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help family members to strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members.Search strategyWe searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We also searched unpublished material, and the reference lists of key articles. We performed both free-text Internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate web sites, and we hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We also consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was performed in November 2007.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and family members to deter the use of tobacco. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention.Data collection and analysisWe reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed them for methodological quality. The studies were too limited in number and quality to undertake a formal meta-analysis, and we present a narrative synthesis.Main resultsWe identified 22 RCTs of family interventions to prevent smoking. We identified six RCTs in Category 1 (minimal risk of bias on all counts); ten in Category 2 (a risk of bias in one or more areas); and six in Category 3 (risks of bias in design and execution such that reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from the study).Considering the sixteen Category 1 and 2 studies together: (1) four of the nine that tested a family intervention against a control group had significant positive effects, but one showed significant negative effects; (2) one of the five RCTs that tested a family intervention against a school intervention had significant positive effects; (3) none of the seven that compared the incremental effects of a family plus a school programme to a school programme alone had significant positive effects; (4) the one RCT that tested a family tobacco intervention against a family non-tobacco safety intervention showed no effects; and (5) the trial that used general risk reduction interventions found the group which received the parent and teen interventions had less smoking than the one that received only the teen intervention, and in the trial of CD-ROMs to reduce alcohol use, both groups which received the alcohol reduction intervention had less smoking than the control. In neither trial was there a tobacco intervention, but tobacco outcomes were measured.For the included trials the amount of implementer training and the fidelity of implementation are related to positive outcomes, but the number of sessions is not.Authors' conclusionsSome well-executed RCTs show family interventions may prevent adolescent smoking, but RCTs which were less well executed had mostly neutral or negative results. There is thus a need for well-designed and executed RCTs in this area.Plain Language SummaryDoes preventing children from starting to smoke reduce the number of people damaging their health by smokingChildren and adolescents' likelihood of starting to smoke may be influenced by the behaviour of their families, and it may be possible to help family members strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking in children and other family members. Some high quality studies show that family interventions may help to prevent adolescent smoking, but less well-conducted trials had mostly neutral or negative findings. How well the programme staff are trained and how well they deliver the programme may be related to effectiveness, but the number of sessions in the programme does not seem to make a difference.
    Evidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal 06/2009; 4(2):826-882. DOI:10.1002/ebch.378

Full-text (6 Sources)

Available from
Apr 10, 2015