Meta-analysis reveals motivational interviewing outperforms weak controls but matches specific treatments across behavioral outcomes, indicating its efficacy depends on delivery and patient factors.
Objective: The authors investigated the unique contribution motivational interviewing (MI) has on counseling outcomes and how MI compares with other interventions. Method: A total of 119 studies were subjected to a meta-analysis. Targeted outcomes included substance use (tobacco, alcohol, drugs, marijuana), health-related behaviors (diet, exercise, safe sex), gambling, and engagement in treatment variables. Results: Judged against weak comparison groups, MI produced statistically significant, durable results in the small effect range (average g = 0.28). Judged against specific treatments, MI produced nonsignificant results (average g = 0.09). MI was robust across many moderators, although feedback (Motivational Enhancement Therapy [MET]), delivery time, manualization, delivery mode (group vs. individual), and ethnicity moderated outcomes. Conclusions: MI contributes to counseling efforts, and results are influenced by participant and delivery factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lundahl et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: