Do improvements in motivational language predict alcohol use in motivational interviewing? Ambivalence matters.

IF 4.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of consulting and clinical psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1037/ccp0000889
David P Forman, Jon M Houck, Theresa B Moyers
{"title":"Do improvements in motivational language predict alcohol use in motivational interviewing? Ambivalence matters.","authors":"David P Forman, Jon M Houck, Theresa B Moyers","doi":"10.1037/ccp0000889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Motivational Interviewing (MI) is described as a method for improving clinical outcomes by reducing client ambivalence. If this is true, MI's focus on improving clients' motivational language should be most useful for clients with ambivalence about change and less valuable for those who are ready to implement new behaviors or are opposed to change. To address this hypothesis and potentially add precision to MI delivery in clinical settings, we tested whether the relationship between clients' in-session motivational language and posttreatment alcohol use depended on their baseline motivation to change.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Client speech from 149 sessions from Project MATCH were analyzed. A cluster analysis of the percent change talk during the first decile of the session identified three motivational groups: opposed, ambivalent, and ready. The change in percent change talk (C-PCT) across the session was calculated for each group. Zero-inflated negative binomial analysis was used to test whether the effect of C-PCT on end-of-treatment drinking varied between motivational groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The count part of the model revealed a significant interaction between C-PCT and membership in the ambivalent group (b = -17.710, 95% CI [-25.775, -9.645], p < .001), only for those who received MI. Favorable C-PCT was associated with less drinking (b = -15.735, p = .004). Only baseline drinking was a significant predictor of abstinence at follow-up (b = .032, 95% CI [0.012, 0.051], p = .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A putative MI mechanism-improved client motivational language-appears most important for clients who express ambivalence in the opening minutes of the session, with minimal value for those who do not. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000889","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Motivational Interviewing (MI) is described as a method for improving clinical outcomes by reducing client ambivalence. If this is true, MI's focus on improving clients' motivational language should be most useful for clients with ambivalence about change and less valuable for those who are ready to implement new behaviors or are opposed to change. To address this hypothesis and potentially add precision to MI delivery in clinical settings, we tested whether the relationship between clients' in-session motivational language and posttreatment alcohol use depended on their baseline motivation to change.

Method: Client speech from 149 sessions from Project MATCH were analyzed. A cluster analysis of the percent change talk during the first decile of the session identified three motivational groups: opposed, ambivalent, and ready. The change in percent change talk (C-PCT) across the session was calculated for each group. Zero-inflated negative binomial analysis was used to test whether the effect of C-PCT on end-of-treatment drinking varied between motivational groups.

Results: The count part of the model revealed a significant interaction between C-PCT and membership in the ambivalent group (b = -17.710, 95% CI [-25.775, -9.645], p < .001), only for those who received MI. Favorable C-PCT was associated with less drinking (b = -15.735, p = .004). Only baseline drinking was a significant predictor of abstinence at follow-up (b = .032, 95% CI [0.012, 0.051], p = .001).

Conclusion: A putative MI mechanism-improved client motivational language-appears most important for clients who express ambivalence in the opening minutes of the session, with minimal value for those who do not. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
动机性访谈中动机性语言的改进是否能预测饮酒情况?矛盾心理很重要。
目的:动机访谈法(MI)被描述为一种通过减少客户的矛盾心理来改善临床效果的方法。如果这是真的话,那么动机访谈法对改善客户动机语言的关注应该对那些对改变有矛盾心理的客户最有用,而对那些已经准备好实施新行为或反对改变的客户则价值不大。为了解决这一假设,并在临床环境中提高多元智能实施的精确性,我们测试了客户在治疗过程中的动机语言与治疗后酒精使用之间的关系是否取决于他们的基线改变动机:方法:分析了 "MATCH 项目 "149 个疗程中患者的谈话。对疗程前十分之一的改变谈话百分比进行聚类分析,确定了三个动机组:反对、矛盾和准备。计算了每个组在整个会话期间的变化谈话百分比(C-PCT)。使用零膨胀负二项分析来检验 C-PCT 对治疗末期饮酒量的影响在不同动机组之间是否存在差异:该模型的计数部分显示,C-PCT与矛盾组的成员资格之间存在显著的交互作用(b = -17.710,95% CI [-25.775, -9.645],p < .001),但仅适用于接受MI治疗的患者。良好的 C-PCT 与较少饮酒有关(b = -15.735,p = .004)。只有基线饮酒才是随访时戒酒的重要预测因素(b = .032,95% CI [0.012,0.051],p = .001):结论:一种假定的多元智能机制--改善客户的动机语言--对于那些在疗程开始几分钟就表达矛盾心理的客户来说似乎最为重要,而对于那些没有表达矛盾心理的客户来说,其价值则微乎其微。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
94
期刊介绍: The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.
期刊最新文献
Multimodal analysis of temporal affective variability within treatment for depression. Reducing intrusive suicidal mental images in patients with depressive symptoms through a dual-task add-on module: Results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Supplemental Material for Reducing Intrusive Suicidal Mental Images in Patients With Depressive Symptoms Through a Dual-Task Add-on Module: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Session-level effects of cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure on individual symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder among U.S. veterans. Do improvements in motivational language predict alcohol use in motivational interviewing? Ambivalence matters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1