Motivational Versus Confrontational Interviewing: a Comparison of Substance Abuse Assessment Practices at Employee Assistance Programs

Overview

Journal J Behav Health Serv Res

Publisher Springer

Specialty Health Services

Date 2000 Mar 1

PMID 10695241

Citations 10

Authors

R J Schneider

J Casey

R Kohn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a quasi-experimental comparison of two employee assistance program (EAP) assessment approaches with substance abusers: confrontational interviewing (CI) and motivational interviewing (MI). A total of 176 EAP clients from 14 study sites met the study criteria, and 89 (51%) agreed to participate in the study. At three and nine months postassessment, both the MI and CI groups showed similar changes in readiness for change, completion of initial treatment plans, and subsequent treatment. Most important, both the MI and CI participants showed significant and comparable improvement on all of the substance abuse baseline measures as well as measures of family-social well-being and effects of drinking/drugging on work performance. The results open the door for EAP counselors to use an empirically supported assessment style that is at least as effective as the traditional confrontational approach.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness and User Experience of a Smoking Cessation Chatbot: Mixed Methods Study Comparing Motivational Interviewing and Confrontational Counseling.

He L, Basar E, Krahmer E, Wiers R, Antheunis M J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e53134.

PMID: 39106097 PMC: 11336496. DOI: 10.2196/53134.

Engaging Law Enforcement Employees in Mental Health Help-Seeking: Examining the Utilization of Interactive Screening Program and Motivational Interviewing Techniques.

Deng Y, Frey J, Osteen P, Mosby A, Imboden R, Ware O Adm Policy Ment Health. 2024; .

PMID: 38782797 DOI: 10.1007/s10488-024-01384-0.

Expanding the continuum of substance use disorder treatment: Nonabstinence approaches.

Paquette C, Daughters S, Witkiewitz K Clin Psychol Rev. 2021; 91:102110.

PMID: 34864497 PMC: 8815796. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102110.

Can Motivational Interviewing Make a Difference in Supporting Employees to Deal with Elevated Blood Pressure? A Feasibility Study at the Workplace.

Michaelis M, Witte Nee Farian C, Schule B, Frick K, Rieger M Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(8).

PMID: 33920894 PMC: 8071336. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084179.

Randomized trial of intensive motivational interviewing for methamphetamine dependence.

Polcin D, Bond J, Korcha R, Nayak M, Galloway G, Evans K J Addict Dis. 2014; 33(3):253-65.

PMID: 25115166 PMC: 4224618. DOI: 10.1080/10550887.2014.950029.

References

Miller W . Motivation for treatment: a review with special emphasis on alcoholism. Psychol Bull. 1985; 98(1):84-107. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.98.1.84. View

Cox W, Klinger E . A motivational model of alcohol use. J Abnorm Psychol. 1988; 97(2):168-80. DOI: 10.1037//0021-843x.97.2.168. View

Smith J, Frawley P . Long-term abstinence from alcohol in patients receiving aversion therapy as part of a multimodal inpatient program. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1990; 7(2):77-82. DOI: 10.1016/0740-5472(90)90002-8. View

. Dispelling the myths about addiction: strategies to increase understanding and strengthen research . BMJ. 1998; 316(7145):1683. PMC: 1113258. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.316.7145.1683. View

Sobell L, Maisto S, Sobell M, Cooper A . Reliability of alcohol abusers' self-reports of drinking behavior. Behav Res Ther. 1979; 17(2):157-60. DOI: 10.1016/0005-7967(79)90025-1. View

Skinner H, Allen B . Alcohol dependence syndrome: measurement and validation. J Abnorm Psychol. 1982; 91(3):199-209. DOI: 10.1037//0021-843x.91.3.199. View

Babor T, Stephens R, Marlatt G . Verbal report methods in clinical research on alcoholism: response bias and its minimization. J Stud Alcohol. 1987; 48(5):410-24. DOI: 10.15288/jsa.1987.48.410. View

Beattie M, Longbaugh R, Fava J . Assessment of alcohol-related workplace activities: development and testing of "Your Workplace". J Stud Alcohol. 1992; 53(5):469-75. DOI: 10.15288/jsa.1992.53.469. View

DiClemente C, Hughes S . Stages of change profiles in outpatient alcoholism treatment. J Subst Abuse. 1990; 2(2):217-35. DOI: 10.1016/s0899-3289(05)80057-4. View

10.

Fox R . A multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of alcoholism. Am J Psychiatry. 1967; 123(7):769-78. DOI: 10.1176/ajp.123.7.769. View

11.

Moore R, Murphy T . Denial of alcoholism as an obstacle to recovery. Q J Stud Alcohol. 1961; 22:597-609. View

12.

McLellan A, Luborsky L, OBrien C, Woody G, Druley K . Is treatment for substance abuse effective?. JAMA. 1982; 247(10):1423-8. View

13.

Blum T, Roman P, Martin J . Alcohol consumption and work performance. J Stud Alcohol. 1993; 54(1):61-70. DOI: 10.15288/jsa.1993.54.61. View

14.

Gavin D, Ross H, Skinner H . Diagnostic validity of the drug abuse screening test in the assessment of DSM-III drug disorders. Br J Addict. 1989; 84(3):301-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb03463.x. View

15.

. Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity: Project MATCH posttreatment drinking outcomes. J Stud Alcohol. 1997; 58(1):7-29. View

16.

McLellan A, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R, Smith I, Grissom G . The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992; 9(3):199-213. DOI: 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s. View