Alcohol and Alcoholism Advance Access published online on March 17, 2006
Alcohol and Alcoholism, doi:10.1093/alcalc/agl016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 University of Wales, Bangor, UK
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Aims: (1) To examine whether or not motivational interviewing (MI) is more efficacious than no intervention in reducing alcohol consumption; (2) to examine whether or not MI is as efficacious as other interventions. Method: A literature search followed by a meta-analytic review of randomized control trials of MI interventions. Aggregated between-group effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated for each study. Results: Literature search revealed 22 relevant studies, of which nine compared brief MI with no treatment, and met methodological criteria for inclusion. In these, the aggregate effect size was 0.18 (95% C.I. 0.07, 0.29), but was greater 0.60 (95% C.I. 0.36, 0.83) when, in a post-hoc analysis, the follow-up period was three months or less. Its efficacy also increased when dependent drinkers were excluded. There were nine studies meeting methodological criteria for inclusion which compared brief MI with another treatment (one of a diverse set of interventions), yielding an aggregate effect size of 0.43 (95% C.I. 0.17, 0.70). The literature review pointed to several factors which may influence MI's long-term efficacy effectiveness of MI. Conclusions: Brief MI is effective. Future studies should focus on possible predictors of efficacy such as gender, age, employment status, marital status, mental health, initial expectations, readiness to change, and whether the population is drawn from treatment-seeking or non-treatment-seeking populations. Also, the components of MI should be compared to determine which are most responsible for maintaining long-term changes.
Received July 11, 2005
Revised February 13, 2006
Accepted February 16, 2006
Article
THE EFFICACY OF MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING AS A BRIEF INTERVENTION FOR EXCESSIVE DRINKING: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW
EIRINI I. VASILAKI 1,
STEVEN G. HOSIER 1,
and
W. MILES COX 1 *
W. MILES COX, E-mail: m.cox{at}bangor.ac.uk
Abstract 
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. C. Blow, M. A. Ilgen, M. A. Walton, E. K. Czyz, R. McCammon, S. T. Chermack, R. M. Cunningham, and K. L. Barry Severity of Baseline Alcohol Use as a Moderator of Brief Interventions in the Emergency Department Alcohol Alcohol., September 1, 2009; 44(5): 486 - 490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. A. Zule, E. C. Costenbader, C. M. Coomes, and W. M. Wechsberg Effects of a Hepatitis C Virus Educational Intervention or a Motivational Intervention on Alcohol Use, Injection Drug Use, and Sexual Risk Behaviors Among Injection Drug Users Am J Public Health, April 1, 2009; 99(S1): S180 - S186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Linke, J. McCambridge, Z. Khadjesari, P. Wallace, and E. Murray Development of a Psychologically Enhanced Interactive Online Intervention for Hazardous Drinking Alcohol Alcohol., November 1, 2008; 43(6): 669 - 674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Treating depression in alcohol misuse DTB, February 1, 2008; 46(2): 11 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Walther, B. Montse, M. Silvia, N. Gemma, and G. Antoni Teaching hospital staff about hazardous drinking: The effect of a single intervention Alcohol Alcohol., January 1, 2008; 43(1): 51 - 52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Gaume, G. Gmel, and J.-B. Daeppen Brief alcohol interventions: Do counsellors' and patients' communication characteristics predict change? Alcohol Alcohol., January 1, 2008; 43(1): 62 - 69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Rodriguez-Martos, Y. Castellano, J. M. Salmeron, and G. Domingo Simple advice for injured hazardous drinkers: an implementation study Alcohol Alcohol., September 1, 2007; 42(5): 430 - 435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|