Brief motivational feedback improves post-incarceration treatment contact among veterans with substance use disorders

Davis, Tania M.; Baer, John; Saxon, Andrew J.; Kivlahan, Daniel R.

doi:10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00317-4

Cited by 60 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there were no differences in completion rates for the three therapy sessions, participants who received MET+CBT attended more treatment sessions during the follow-up period. This finding is consistent with a number of emerging studies suggesting that motivational enhancement, as a preparatory intervention, may enhance treatment engagement (Carroll et al, 2006;Connors et al, 2002;Davis et al, 2003). With regard to the process measures, those who received MET+CBT reported significantly greater desire for abstinence, greater expectations of success, and also expected greater difficulty in maintaining abstinence after quitting compared to those who received CBT, although these differences were not maintained by follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Enhancing brief cognitive-behavioral therapy with motivational enhancement techniques in cocaine users

McKee

Carroll

Sinha

et al. 2007

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-We investigated the impact of enhancing brief cognitive behavioral therapy with motivational interviewing techniques for cocaine abuse or dependence, using a focused intervention paradigm.Methods-Participants (n=74) who met current criteria for cocaine abuse or dependence were randomized to 3-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or 3-session enhanced CBT (MET + CBT), which included an initial session of motivational enhancement therapy (MET). Outcome measures included treatment retention, process measures (e.g., commitment to abstinence, satisfaction with treatment), and cocaine use.Results-Participants who received the MET+CBT intervention attended more drug treatment sessions following the study interventions, reported significantly greater desire for abstinence and expectation of success, and they expected greater difficulty in maintaining abstinence compared to the CBT condition. There were no differences across treatment conditions on cocaine use.Conclusions-These findings offer mixed support for the addition of MET as an adjunctive approach to CBT for cocaine users. In addition, the study provides evidence for the feasibility of using short-term studies to test the effects of specific treatment components or refinements on measures of therapy process and outcome.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Enhancing brief cognitive-behavioral therapy with motivational enhancement techniques in cocaine users

McKee

Carroll

Sinha

et al. 2007

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…74 In veterans with a substance use disorder, a 1-hour feedback condition incorporating principles of motivational interviewing led to higher rates of scheduling an appointment at an addictions clinic, but it did not lead to higher rates of clinic attendance or treatment retention. 79 Participation in a 1-month treatment program for men who used alcohol did not affect the number of attempts to obtain help for drinking problems in the year after release compared with receiving no treatment. 123 Persons with mental disorders-One study assessed the impact of a writing intervention on health care use in men with a mental disorder in a psychiatric prison.…”

Section: Health Service Use Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…74,79 In adults with serious mental illness and a current substance use disorder, a community-based Integrated Dual Disorders Treatment program in addition to an in-custody treatment unit increased use of outpatient medication services and reduced mean days of hospitalization, but did not affect rates of hospitalization over 18 months of follow-up. 74 In veterans with a substance use disorder, a 1-hour feedback condition incorporating principles of motivational interviewing led to higher rates of scheduling an appointment at an addictions clinic, but it did not lead to higher rates of clinic attendance or treatment retention.…”

Section: Health Service Use Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Persons with substance use disorders-Three studies focused on improving health service use in persons with substance use disorders, 74,79,123 and 2 of the interventions studied resulted in positive changes. 74,79 In adults with serious mental illness and a current substance use disorder, a community-based Integrated Dual Disorders Treatment program in addition to an in-custody treatment unit increased use of outpatient medication services and reduced mean days of hospitalization, but did not affect rates of hospitalization over 18 months of follow-up.…”

Section: Health Service Use Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions to Improve the Health of Persons During Imprisonment and in the Year After Release

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve the health of people during imprisonment or in the year after release. We searched 14 biomedical and social science databases in 2014, and identified 95 studies.Most studies involved only men or a majority of men (70/83 studies in which gender was specified); only 16 studies focused on adolescents. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 57). The risk of bias for outcomes in almost all studies was unclear or high (n=91). In 59 studies, interventions led to improved mental health, substance use, infectious diseases, or health service utilization outcomes; in 42 of these studies, outcomes were measured in the community after release.Improving the health of people who experience imprisonment requires knowledge generation and knowledge translation, including implementation of effective interventions.Worldwide, more than 11 million people are imprisoned at any given time, and the prison population continues to grow at a rate faster than that of the general population. 1 Substantial evidence reveals that people who have experienced imprisonment have poor health compared with the general population, as indicated by the prevalence of mental illness, infectious diseases, chronic diseases, and mortality. 2 There are several reasons to focus on improving the health of people who experience imprisonment. 3 The burden of disease in this population affects the general population directly through increased health care costs and through the transmission of communicable diseases (e.g., HIV, HCV, and tuberculosis) after people are released from detention. Imprisonment has also been associated with worse health in family members of those who are detained, compared with the general population, including chronic diseases 4 and poor mental health 5,6 in adult relatives and mortality in male children. 7 At the community level, higher rates of incarceration have been associated with adverse health outcomes, such as sexually transmitted infections and teen pregnancies. 8 There is also evidence that poor health in persons who are released from detention, particularly those with inadequately treated mental illness and substance use disorders, 3 may affect public safety and reincarceration rates, 3 and that better access to health care is associated with less recidivism. 9,10 Finally, the right to health and health care is enshrined in international human rights documents, 11,12 and is a legislated responsibility of governments in many countries.Intervening during imprisonment and at the time of release could improve the health of people who experience imprisonment and public health overall. 13 To address this gap, we systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve health in persons during imprisonment and in the year after release.We chose this population because we view imprisonment as a unique opportunity to deliver and to link with interventions for this population, and to highlight interventions t...

show abstract

“…A review of the literature found few studies examining ABIs in prison and of these a number were hampered by methodological constraints including differences in outcome measurements (Newbury-Birch et al, 2015;2016). Of the reviewed studies, the picture is one of mixed effectiveness with either; no change in drinking behaviours noted between prisoners receiving a brief intervention and a control group (Davis et al, 2003;Clarke et al, 2011); or where change was noted this effect lasted in the short-term only and not beyond six 7 months (Stein et al, 2010). These studies only examined the extent of post-intervention behaviour change as opposed to staff or prisoner perceptions.…”

Section: Alcohol Brief Interventions In Prisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploration of delivering brief interventions in a prison setting: A qualitative study in one English region

Sondhi¹,

Birch

Lynch

et al. 2016

Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: There is evidence that alcohol is strongly correlated with offending. This qualitative study explored the views of staff on the efficacy of alcohol brief interventions within a prison setting. The perceptions of prisoners in relation to non-dependent drinking were also examined.Methods: Nine prisons in one English region took part in this research. Five focus groups with 25 prisoners were undertaken with prisoners alongside focus group discussions with 30 professionals. Discussions were recorded using shorthand notation and the main themes were thematically mapped using visual mapping techniques. Findings:The use of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) was perceived as problematic. Prisoner drinking norms differed widely from community consumption patterns. There were also operational issues that reduced the salience of a brief intervention for prisoners. Conclusions:The delivery of screening and brief interventions within a prison setting is highly nuanced and fraught with inconsistencies. Despite these challenges, there are opportunities to develop coherent and tailored brief interventions for a custodial environment that should focus on developing three key areas around: (a) interventions for the point of release; (b) enhanced content around family impact and offending; and (c) forward-looking goal-setting as motivational tools to facilitate change. Keywords:Alcohol -Screening and Brief Intervention -Prison

show abstract

Brief motivational feedback improves post-incarceration treatment contact among veterans with substance use disorders

Cited by 60 publications

References 20 publications

Enhancing brief cognitive-behavioral therapy with motivational enhancement techniques in cocaine users

Enhancing brief cognitive-behavioral therapy with motivational enhancement techniques in cocaine users

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions to Improve the Health of Persons During Imprisonment and in the Year After Release

Exploration of delivering brief interventions in a prison setting: A qualitative study in one English region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About