Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Motivational Enhancement Therapy for Reducing Substance Use

Abstract

The authors report the findings of a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing motivational enhancement therapy with no treatment and alternative treatments. Mean effect‐size data are reported. Implications and suggestions for counseling practice and future research are provided.

Continuing Education in Motivational Interviewing for Addiction Counselors: Reducing the Research‐to‐Practice Gap

“…In addition, MI has been shown to be as efficacious as extended treatment conditions for alcohol use disorders (Moyer, Finney, Swearingen, & Vergun, 2002). More recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the research also support the efficacy of MI (Lenz, Rosenbaum, & Sheperis, 2016;Lundahl et al, 2013;Riper et al, 2014;Sayegh, Huey, Zara, & Jhaveri, 2017;VanBuskirk & Wetherell, 2014). Findings indicate that (a) MI delivered in medical settings is effective in reducing substance use (Lundahl et al, 2013;VanBuskirk & Wetherell, 2014); (b) MI is effective in the treatment of comorbid alcohol use disorders and depression (Riper et al, 2014); and (c) MI promotes reductions in use across a range of substances (Lenz et al, 2016), even several months after the implementation of the intervention (Sayegh et al, 2017).…”

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of motivational interviewing for bullying perpetration in school settings

“…Ambivalence often derives from behaviours that are problems but that also hold an intrinsic reward value; bullying is likely to be such a behaviour, in light of the social and/or instrumental rewards that can accrue from bullying others (see Cross et al, 2018 for a full conceptual mapping of the rationale for use of MI with bullying). MI has been effective for behaviours such as medication compliance, HIV risk, and obesity (Lenz, Rosenbaum, & Sheperis, 2016;Lundahl, Tollefson, Kunz, Brownell, & Burke, 2010). It has shown its value with adolescents (Erickson, Gerstle & Feldstein, 2005), in schools for issues such as academic disengagement (Frey et al, 2011;Rollnick, Kaplan, & Rutschman, 2016;Snape & Atkinson, 2016, and in reducing alcohol-related violence in youth (Cunningham et al, 2012).…”

Impact of Brief Intervention Workshops on Addiction Provider Knowledge, Skills, Negative Attitudes, and Interest in Implementing Evidence-Based Practices

“…Results from two meta-analyses examining brief intervention outcomes indicate MI is effective in the treatment of excessive alcohol use (Vasilaki, Hosier, & Cox, 2006), and both MI and SBIRT are as effective as extended treatment conditions for alcohol use disorders (Moyer, Finney, Swearingen, & Vergun, 2002). Researchers have also found that MI is associated with reductions in use across a range of substances (Lenz, Rosenbaum, & Sheperis, 2016), even several months after the implementation of the intervention (Sayegh, Huey, Zara, & Jhaveri, 2017). Similarly, SBIRT is associated with significant reductions in heavy alcohol use and illicit drug use across a range of health-care settings and among diverse patient populations (Madras et al., 2009).…”