» Articles » PMID: 36442021

Change Talk Subtypes As Predictors of Alcohol Use Following Brief Motivational Intervention

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To examine the relative importance of client change language subtypes as predictors of alcohol use following motivational interviewing (MI).

Method: Participants were 164 heavy drinkers (57.3% female, = 28.5 years, 13.4% Hispanic/Latinx, 82.9% White) recruited during an emergency department visit who received MI for alcohol and human immunodeficiency virus/sexual risk in a randomized-controlled trial. MI sessions were coded with the motivational interviewing skill code (MISC) and the generalized behavioral intervention analysis system (GBIAS). Variable importance analyses used targeted maximum likelihood estimation to rank order change language subtypes defined by these systems as predictors of alcohol use over 9 months of follow-up.

Results: Among GBIAS change language subtypes, higher sustain talk (ST) around change planning was ranked the most important predictor of drinks per week ( = -5.57, 95% CI [-8.11, -3.02]) and heavy drinking days ( = -2.07, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.98]); this talk reflected (a) rejection of alcohol abstinence as a desired change goal, (b) rejection of specific change strategies, or (c) discussion of anticipated challenges in changing drinking. Among MISC change language subtypes, higher ST around taking steps-reflecting recent escalations in drinking described by a small minority of participants-was ranked the most important predictor of drinks per week ( = 22.71, 95% CI [20.29, 25.13]) and heavy drinking days ( = -2.45, 95% CI [1.68, 3.21]).

Conclusions: Results challenge the assumption that all ST during MI is a negative prognostic indicator and highlight the importance of the context in which change language emerges. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Citing Articles

Change talk subtypes as predictors of alcohol use following brief motivational intervention.

Kahler C, Janssen T, Gruber S, Howe C, Laws M, Walthers J Psychol Addict Behav. 2022; 37(7):875-885.

PMID: 36442021 PMC: 10225014. DOI: 10.1037/adb0000898.

References
1.
Gaume J, Bertholet N, Faouzi M, Gmel G, Daeppen J . Does change talk during brief motivational interventions with young men predict change in alcohol use?. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012; 44(2):177-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.04.005. View

2.
Poole C . Low P-values or narrow confidence intervals: which are more durable?. Epidemiology. 2001; 12(3):291-4. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-200105000-00005. View

3.
Appelbaum M, Cooper H, Kline R, Mayo-Wilson E, Nezu A, Rao S . Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol. 2018; 73(1):3-25. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000191. View

4.
Monti P, Mastroleo N, Barnett N, Colby S, Kahler C, Operario D . Brief motivational intervention to reduce alcohol and HIV/sexual risk behavior in emergency department patients: A randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016; 84(7):580-91. PMC: 4919277. DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000097. View

5.
Houck J, Manuel J, Moyers T . Short- and Long-Term Effects of Within-Session Client Speech on Drinking Outcomes in the COMBINE Study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2018; 79(2):217-222. PMC: 6019773. DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2018.79.217. View