A Randomized Trial of Methods to Help Clinicians Learn Motivational Interviewing.

Department of Psychology, Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1161, USA.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Impact Factor: 4.85). 01/2005; 72(6):1050-62. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1050
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Evaluating Methods for Motivational Enhancement Education trial evaluated methods for learning motivational interviewing (MI). Licensed substance abuse professionals (N = 140) were randomized to 5 training conditions: (a) clinical workshop only; (b) workshop plus practice feedback; (c) workshop plus individual coaching sessions; (d) workshop, feedback, and coaching; or (e) a waiting list control group of self-guided training. Audiotaped practice samples were analyzed at baseline, posttraining, and 4, 8, and 12 months later. Relative to controls, the 4 trained groups showed larger gains in proficiency. Coaching and/or feedback also increased posttraining proficiency. After delayed training, the waiting list group showed modest gains in proficiency. Posttraining proficiency was generally well maintained throughout follow-up. Clinician self-reports of MI skillfulness were unrelated to proficiency levels in observed practice.

Download full-text


Available from: Theresa B Moyers, Jan 08, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This quasi experimental study compared the Motivational Interviewing (MI) integrity in two prevalent brief intervention (BI) service delivery models for drug abuse. Routine primary care providers (RCPs) and non-routine care providers (NRCPs) performed BIs using an MI style within the same medical setting, patient population, and Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Treatment (SBIRT) protocol. Interventionists (9 RCPs and 6 NRCPs) underwent similar MI training and performed a total of 423 BIs. We compared the MI integrity scores for all audio recorded sessions from these two SBIRT models for up to 40 months post MI training. Both groups met beginning proficiency in MI on 4 of 5 MI integrity scores, but NRCPs met more of the higher competency criteria than RCPs. There may be limitations with regards to MI fidelity when using RCPs to conduct BIs in some primary care settings. Further experimental investigation is warranted to replicate this finding and identify casual factors of observed differences in MI fidelity.
    Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 11/2014; Advance online publication. DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2014.10.009 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction and AimsFew studies of the implementation of alcohol brief interventions (ABI) have been conducted in community settings such as mental health, social work and criminal justice teams. This qualitative interview study sought to explore the impact of training on ABI delivery by staff from a variety of such teams.Design and Methods Fifteen semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with trained practitioners and with managers to explore the use of, perceived need for and approaches to ABI delivery and recording with clients, and compatibility of ABIs with current practice. Interviews were analysed thematically using an inductive approach.ResultsVery few practitioners reported delivery of any ABIs following training primarily because they felt ABIs to be inappropriate for their clients. According to practitioners, this was either because they drank too much or too little to benefit. Practitioners reported a range of current activities relating to alcohol, and some felt that their knowledge and confidence were improved following training. One practitioner reported ABI delivery and was considered a training success, while expectations of ABIs did not fit with current practice including assessment procedures for the remainder.Discussion and Conclusions Identified barriers to ABI delivery included issues relating to individual practitioners, their teams, current practice and the ABI model. They are likely to be best addressed by strategic team- and setting-specific approaches to implementation, of which training is only one part.
    Drug and Alcohol Review 09/2014; 34(2). DOI:10.1111/dar.12193 · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    08/2014; 7(4):240-254. DOI:10.1080/1754730X.2014.949063