Influence of counselor characteristics and behaviors on the efficacy of a brief motivational intervention for heavy drinking in young men-a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Brief motivational intervention (BMI) has shown promising results to reduce alcohol use in young adults. Knowledge on mechanisms that predict BMI efficacy could potentially improve treatment effect sizes through data that optimize clinical training and implementation. Particularly, little attention has been given to counselor influence on treatment mechanisms. METHODS: We investigated the influence of counselors on BMI efficacy in reducing alcohol use among non-treatment-seeking young men (age 20) screened as hazardous drinkers. Participants were randomly allocated to (i) a group receiving a single BMI from 1 of 18 counselors selected to maximize differences in several of their characteristics (gender, professional status, clinical experience, and motivational interviewing [MI] experience) or (ii) a control group receiving assessment only. Drinking at 3-month follow-up was first compared between the BMI and control groups to assess efficacy. Then, the influence of counselors' characteristics (i.e., gender, professional status, clinical experience, MI experience, BMI attitudes, and expectancies) and within-session behaviors (i.e., measured by the Motivational Interviewing Skill Code) on outcome was tested in regression analyses. RESULTS: There was a significant (p = 0.02) decrease in alcohol use among the BMI group compared to the control group. Counselors that were male, more experienced, that had more favorable BMI attitudes and expectancies, higher MI skills, but surprisingly less MI-consistent behaviors, had significantly better outcomes than the control group while their counterparts did not. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated BMI efficacy on alcohol use reduction within a sample of non-treatment-seeking young adult males. Moreover, BMI effect was related to interindividual differences among counselors, and results therefore provide recommendations for BMI training and implementation with similar populations.

Do brief alcohol motivational interventions work like we think they do?

BACKGROUND: Questions remain about how brief motivational interventions (BMIs) for unhealthy alcohol use work, and addressing these questions may be important for improving their efficacy. Therefore, we assessed the effects of various characteristics of BMIs on drinking outcomes across 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Audio recordings of 314 BMIs were coded. We used the global rating scales of the Motivational Interviewing Skills Code (MISC) 2.1: counselor's acceptance, empathy, and motivational interviewing (MI) spirit, and patient's self-exploration were rated. MI proficiency was defined as counselor's rating scale scores ≥5. We also used the structure, confrontation, and advice subscale scores of the Therapy Process Rating Scale and the Working Alliance Inventory. We examined these process characteristics in interventions across 1 U.S. RCT of middle-aged medical inpatients with unhealthy alcohol use (n = 124) and 2 Swiss RCTs of young men with binge drinking in a nonclinical setting: Swiss-one (n = 62) and Swiss-two (n = 128). We assessed the associations between these characteristics and drinks/d reported by participants 3 to 6 months after study entry. RESULTS: In all 3 RCTs, mean MISC counselor's rating scales scores were consistent with MI proficiency. In overdispersed Poisson regression models, most BMI characteristics were not significantly associated with drinks/d in follow-up. In the U.S. RCT, confrontation and self-exploration were associated with more drinking. Giving advice was significantly associated with less drinking in the Swiss-one RCT. Contrary to expectations, MI spirit was not consistently associated with drinking across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Across different populations and settings, intervention characteristics viewed as central to efficacious BMIs were neither robust nor consistent predictors of drinking outcome. Although there may be alternative reasons why the level of MI processes was not predictive of outcomes in these studies (limited variability in scores), efforts to understand what makes BMIs efficacious may require attention to factors beyond intervention process characteristics typically examined.

Do brief alcohol motivational interventions work like we think they do?

BACKGROUND: Questions remain about how brief motivational interventions (BMIs) for unhealthy alcohol use work, and addressing these questions may be important for improving their efficacy. Therefore, we assessed the effects of various characteristics of BMIs on drinking outcomes across 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Audio recordings of 314 BMIs were coded. We used the global rating scales of the Motivational Interviewing Skills Code (MISC) 2.1: counselor's acceptance, empathy, and motivational interviewing (MI) spirit, and patient's self-exploration were rated. MI proficiency was defined as counselor's rating scale scores ≥5. We also used the structure, confrontation, and advice subscale scores of the Therapy Process Rating Scale and the Working Alliance Inventory. We examined these process characteristics in interventions across 1 U.S. RCT of middle-aged medical inpatients with unhealthy alcohol use (n = 124) and 2 Swiss RCTs of young men with binge drinking in a nonclinical setting: Swiss-one (n = 62) and Swiss-two (n = 128). We assessed the associations between these characteristics and drinks/d reported by participants 3 to 6 months after study entry. RESULTS: In all 3 RCTs, mean MISC counselor's rating scales scores were consistent with MI proficiency. In overdispersed Poisson regression models, most BMI characteristics were not significantly associated with drinks/d in follow-up. In the U.S. RCT, confrontation and self-exploration were associated with more drinking. Giving advice was significantly associated with less drinking in the Swiss-one RCT. Contrary to expectations, MI spirit was not consistently associated with drinking across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Across different populations and settings, intervention characteristics viewed as central to efficacious BMIs were neither robust nor consistent predictors of drinking outcome. Although there may be alternative reasons why the level of MI processes was not predictive of outcomes in these studies (limited variability in scores), efforts to understand what makes BMIs efficacious may require attention to factors beyond intervention process characteristics typically examined.