The effectiveness and applicability of motivational interviewing: a practice-friendly review of four meta-analyses.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	The effectiveness and applicability of motivational interviewing: a practice-friendly review of four meta-analyses.
Authors:	Lundahl, Brad, Burke, Brian L.
Source:	Journal of Clinical Psychology. Nov2009, Vol. 65 Issue 11, p1232-1245. 14p. 2 Charts.
Subjects:	Motivational interviewing, Psychotherapy, Risk-taking behavior, Substance abuse treatment, Alcoholism treatment, Meta-analysis, Intrinsic motivation, Public health, Motivation (Psychology)
Abstract:	This article reviews the research support for Motivational interviewing (MI) so that practitioners can make informed decisions about the value and applicability of MI in their clinical work. We highlight the evidence from the three published meta-analyses of MI and a recent meta-analysis that we completed. MI is significantly (10%–20%) more effective than no treatment and generally equal to other viable treatments for a wide variety of problems ranging from substance use (alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, and other drugs) to reducing risky behaviors and increasing client engagement in treatment. Although most client-related variables are unrelated to outcomes (e.g., age, gender, severity), some decisions about treatment format (e.g., individual vs. group) are important. For example, relying solely on group-delivered MI appears to be less effective than one-on-one MI, whereas delivering MI with problem feedback is likely to generate better outcomes for some problems than MI alone. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol: In Session 65: 1–14, 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of Clinical Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

Description
Abstract:	This article reviews the research support for Motivational interviewing (MI) so that practitioners can make informed decisions about the value and applicability of MI in their clinical work. We highlight the evidence from the three published meta-analyses of MI and a recent meta-analysis that we completed. MI is significantly (10%–20%) more effective than no treatment and generally equal to other viable treatments for a wide variety of problems ranging from substance use (alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, and other drugs) to reducing risky behaviors and increasing client engagement in treatment. Although most client-related variables are unrelated to outcomes (e.g., age, gender, severity), some decisions about treatment format (e.g., individual vs. group) are important. For example, relying solely on group-delivered MI appears to be less effective than one-on-one MI, whereas delivering MI with problem feedback is likely to generate better outcomes for some problems than MI alone. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol: In Session 65: 1–14, 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	00219762
DOI:	10.1002/jclp.20638