Motivational interviewing: a review

Abstract

There has been considerable interest shown in motivational interviewing (MI), since Miller (1983) initially presented it as an alternative and potentially more effective way of working with problem drinkers, particularly those individuals who may have been perceived as being resistant or in denial. This interest has included developing specific interventions using MI, and extending its use beyond alcohol abuse to a range of problem behaviours, including other mental health problems (e.g., eating disorders) and health problems (e.g., diabetes). The current paper provides an overview of Mlits development, theoretical basis, and applications. Research on its efficacy is reviewed, and recommendations are made for future research.

A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness evaluation of ‘booster’ interventions to sustain increases in physical activity in middle-aged adults in deprived urban neighbourhoods

“…32 Such an approach has been successfully employed to change health-related behaviours previously. 33 This approach also mirrors that adopted by the health trainer initiative which provides a current model of face-to-face promotion of healthy behaviours. For the Full booster, a menu of six strategies has been developed 32 to guide the 30-minute consultation.…”

“…Although face-to-face interventions have been found to be efficacious in promoting physical activity, 33 many of the barriers associated with this approach, including time and financial costs, highlight the need for pragmatic alternatives that are both relatively cheap to deliver and may make it easier for the participant to access the intervention. The Mini Booster will consist of two 20-minute telephone based physical activity consultations.…”

“…Part-time 35 (17) 17 (23) 5 (19) 9 (36) 3 (13) 52 (18) Full-time 69 (33) 24 (32) 12 (46) 6 (24) 6 (25) 93 (33) Not employed 100 (48) 34 (45) 9 (35) 10 (40) 15 (63) 134 ( …”

“…32 When re-estimating the sample size using data from an internal pilot study the revised sample size estimate either stays the same or increases (it cannot be less than the original estimate). 33,34 Assuming a mean difference in TEE of 101.5 kcal per day between the intervention group and the control group as the smallest difference of clinical and practical importance that is worth detecting, then with 450 subjects (300 intervention, 150 control) the trial was originally determined to have 92% power to detect this mean difference or greater between the 'booster' arm and the control arm (assuming a SD of 304.6 kcal per day) as statistically significant at the 5% (two-sided) significance level using a two independent samples t-test. With 300 subjects in the booster intervention (150 mini booster, 150 full booster) the trial would also have had approximately 82% power to detect a similar mean difference in TEE of 101.5 kcal per day between the two booster arms as statistically significant at the 5% (two-sided) significance level using a two independent samples t-test.…”

Can Motivational Interviewing be Truly Integrated with Person-centered Counselling?

“…However, they argue that MI departs from PCA by being consciously goaloriented, by being intentionally directive and by selectively reinforcing the client's change talk. Despite these differences, commentators have often alluded to the debt that MI owes PCA (e.g., Britt, Blampied & Hudson, 2003;Csillik, 2013;Mason, 2009;Wagner & McMahon, 2004). Recent commentaries have also aligned the traditional rehabilitation counselling theme of self-determination with both MI (Page & Tchernitskaia, 2014;Wagner & McMahon, 2004) and PCA (Crisp, 2011).…”