The Change Questionnaire predicts change in hazardous tobacco and alcohol use.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing motivation for change is deemed an important step in the treatment process that allows further refinement of the intervention in motivational interviewing (MI) and brief MI (BMI) adaptations. During MI (and BMI) sessions, motivation for change is expressed by the client as "change talk", i.e. all statements inclined toward or away from change. We tested the predictive validity of the Change Questionnaire, a 12-item instrument assessing motivation to change, on hazardous tobacco and alcohol use. METHODS: As part of the baseline measurements for a randomized controlled trial on multi-substance BMI at the Lausanne recruitment center (army conscription is mandatory in Switzerland for males at age 20, and thus provides a unique opportunity to address a non-clinical and largely representative sample of young men), 213 participants completed the questionnaire on tobacco and 95 on alcohol and were followed-up six months later. The overall Change Questionnaire score and its six subscales (Desire, Ability, Reasons, Need, Commitment, and Taking steps) were used as predictors of hazardous tobacco use (defined as daily smoking) and hazardous alcohol use (defined as more than one occasion with six standard drinks or more per month, and/or more than 21 standard drinks per week) in bivariate logistic regression models at follow-up. RESULTS: Higher overall Change scores were significant predictors of decreased risk for hazardous tobacco (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83, p = 0.046) and alcohol (OR = 0.76, p = 0.03) use. Several sub-dimensions were associated with the outcomes in bivariate analyses. Using a principal components analysis to reduce the number of predictors for multivariate models, we obtained two components. 'Ability to change' was strongly related to change in hazardous tobacco use (OR = 0.54, p < 0.001), the second we interpreted as 'Other change language dimensions' and which was significantly related to change in hazardous alcohol use (OR = 0.81, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings lend initial support for the predictive validity of the Change Questionnaire on hazardous tobacco and alcohol use, making it an interesting and potentially useful tool for assessing motivation to change among young males.

Does readiness to change predict subsequent alcohol consumption in medical inpatients with unhealthy alcohol use?

We studied whether readiness to change predicts alcohol consumption (drinks per day) 3 months later in 267 medical inpatients with unhealthy alcohol use. We used 3 readiness to change measures: a 1 to 10 visual analog scale (VAS) and two factors of the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale: Perception of Problems (PP) and Taking Action (TA). Subjects with the highest level of VAS-measured readiness consumed significantly fewer drinks 3 months later [Incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57 (0.36, 0.91) highest vs. lowest tertile]. Greater PP was associated with more drinking [IRR (95%CI): 1.94 (1.02, 3.68) third vs. lowest quartile]. Greater TA scores were associated with less drinking [IRR (95%CI): 0.42 (0.23, 0.78) highest vs. lowest quartile]. Perception of Problems' association with more drinking may reflect severity rather than an aspect of readiness associated with ability to change; high levels of Taking Action appear to predict less drinking. Although assessing readiness to change may have clinical utility, assessing the patient's planned actions may have more predictive value for future improvement in alcohol consumption.