Article

Brief motivational intervention for adolescent smokers in medical settings

Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Box G-BH, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA.
Addictive Behaviors (Impact Factor: 2.44). 07/2005; 30(5):865-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.10.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study evaluated the efficacy of using a brief motivational intervention to reduce smoking among adolescent patients treated in a hospital outpatient clinic or Emergency Department. Patients aged 14-19 years (N=85) were randomly assigned to receive either one session of motivational interviewing (MI) or standardized brief advice (BA) to quit smoking. The assessment and intervention were conducted in the medical setting proximal to the patient's medical treatment. Patients were proactively screened and recruited, and were not seeking treatment for smoking. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 1, 3, and 6 months post-intervention. Self-report data indicated that 7-day abstinence rates at 6-month follow-up were significantly higher in the MI group than in the BA group, but this difference was not confirmed biochemically. Self-reported smoking rate (average cigarettes per day) was significantly lower at 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up than it was at baseline. Cotinine levels indicated reduced smoking for both groups at 6 months, but not at 1 month. At 3-month follow-up, only those in MI showed cotinine levels that were significantly reduced compared to baseline. Findings offer some support for MI for smoking reduction among non-treatment-seeking adolescents, but overall changes in smoking were small.

1 Follower
 · 
198 Views
  • Source
    • "When applied to smoking, however, results have been mixed. With teenagers, MI for smoking cessation has reduced cotinine levels but not point-prevalence abstinence at outcome (Colby et al., 2005), and, in a separate study, reduced cigarettes per day, but only in the short-term (Colby et al., 2012). In a small study with adult smokers in a general medical setting, there was no effect of MI on smoking rate (Colby et al., 1998). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Residential treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) provides opportunity for smoking intervention. A randomized controlled trial compared: (1) motivational interviewing (MI) to brief advice (BA), (2) in one session or with two booster sessions, for 165 alcoholics in SUD treatment. All received nicotine replacement (NRT). MI and BA produced equivalent confirmed abstinence, averaging 10% at 1month, and 2% at 3, 6 and 12months. However, patients with more drug use pretreatment (>22days in 6months) given BA had more abstinence at 12months (7%) than patients in MI or with less drug use (all 0%). Boosters produced 16-31% fewer cigarettes per day after BA than MI. Substance use was unaffected by treatment condition or smoking cessation. Motivation to quit was higher after BA than MI. Thus, BA plus NRT may be a cost-effective way to reduce smoking for alcoholics with comorbid substance use who are not seeking smoking cessation.
    Journal of substance abuse treatment 10/2013; 46(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2013.10.002 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "There is relatively little research on tobacco BI among adolescents and young adults. Colby et al. (2005) documented the benefits of BI 3 months later, which then declined after 6 months. Similarly, Horn, Dino, Hamilton, and Noerachmanto (2007) found promising, but non-significant effects among teenagers. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Brief interventions (BI) commonly employ screening and target a single substance. Multi-substance interventions are a more adequate reflection of risk behaviors in adolescents and young adults. Systematic screening complicates BI in many settings. The effectiveness of a voluntary multi-substance intervention among 19-year-old men and the incremental impact of booster sessions were analyzed. Participants were enrolled during mandatory army conscription in Switzerland. Compared with 461 controls, 392 BI subjects showed reduced substance use on 10 of 12 measures (4 tobacco, 4 cannabis, and 2 alcohol measures). Between-group effects were small and non-significant (except for cannabis use prevalence). Three-month booster sessions were not effective and even contraindicated. The usefulness of targeting multi-substances during BIs without prior screening depends on the value of small effects. The addition of booster sessions was not effective and therefore is not recommended.
    Journal of substance abuse treatment 08/2012; 44(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2012.07.005 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Some intervention studies report changes in both the hypothesized mediating variables and substance use (D'Amico, et al., 2008; Kelly & Lapworth, 2006; Neighbors, et al., 2010; Orlando, Ellickson, McCaffrey, & Longshore, 2005). Other studies report changes in substance use in the absence of changes in the hypothesized mediating variables (Agostinelli & Grube, 2005; Colby, et al., 2005; Peterson, Baer, Wells, Ginzler, & Garrett, 2006), similar to the present study. Still other studies only report on substance use outcomes and do not discuss potential mediating mechanisms (Baer, et al., 2007; Hollis, et al., 2005; Horn, Dino, Hamilton, & Noerachmanto, 2007; Mason & Posner, 2009; McCambridge, Slym, & Strang, 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are many mandated school-based programs to prevent adolescent alcohol and drug (AOD) use, but few are voluntary and take place outside of class time. This cluster randomized controlled trial evaluates CHOICE, a voluntary after-school program for younger adolescents, which reduced both individual- and school-level alcohol use in a previous pilot study. We evaluated CHOICE with 9,528 students from 16 middle schools. The sample was 51% female; 54% Hispanic, 17% Asian, 15% white, 9% multiethnic and 3% African American. Fifteen percent of students attended CHOICE. All students completed surveys on alcohol beliefs and use at baseline and 6-7 months later. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) school-level analyses and propensity-matched attender analyses. Lifetime alcohol use in the ITT analysis (i.e., school level) achieved statistical significance, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.70 and a NNT of 14.8. The NNT suggests that in a school where CHOICE was offered, 1 adolescent out of 15 was prevented from initiating alcohol use during this time period. Although not statistically significant (p = .20), results indicate that past month alcohol use was also lower in CHOICE schools (OR = 0.81; NNT = 45). Comparisons of attenders versus matched controls yielded results for lifetime use similar to school-wide effects (OR = 0.74 and NNT = 17.6). Initial results are promising and suggest that a voluntary after-school program that focuses specifically on AOD may be effective in deterring alcohol use among early adolescents; however, further research is needed as program effects were modest.
    Prevention Science 02/2012; 13(4):415-25. DOI:10.1007/s11121-011-0269-7 · 2.63 Impact Factor
Show more