Combining Motivational Interviewing and Cognitive Bias Modification Training for Substances in Detained Youth

Overview

Journal JAACAP Open

Date 2024 Dec 19

PMID 39697389

Authors

Hans S van der Baan

Annematt L Collot DEscury-Koenigs

Raoul P P P Grasman

Gerard M Schippers

Reinout W Wiers

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Motivation is considered a key factor in successful treatment. Unfortunately, detained youth typically show lower motivation for treatment and behavioral change. This pilot study examined the effects of a brief Motivational Interviewing (MI) protocol in conjunction with a Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) intervention aimed at reducing substance use in detained youth.

Method: An MI protocol for adult parolees was adapted for adolescents. A total of 52 detained youth received the MI intervention, aimed at enhancing their insights into their substance use and its potential relation with their offenses, plus substance use treatment. These youth were matched with controls from similar populations who received the same CBM without MI.

Results: Changes in motivation over time were examined with a repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results showed no change in motivation over time, nor a significant effect of condition (MI vs no MI).

Conclusion: Although application of the MI protocol was feasible, no effect was found on motivation, in contrast to the original adult-focused protocol. Certain core facets of the original protocol, such as client reflection on their history of substance use, may be less applicable to detained youth whose use history is relatively brief. The severity of their substance use behavior should also be taken into account in any future applications.

References

Gideon L . Drug offenders' perceptions of motivation: the role of motivation in rehabilitation and reintegration. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2009; 54(4):597-610. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X09333377. View

Hillege S, van Domburgh L, Mulder E, Jansen L, Vermeiren R . How Do Forensic Clinicians Decide? A Delphi Approach to Identify Domains Commonly Used in Forensic Juvenile Treatment Planning. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2016; 62(3):591-608. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X16658724. View

Schmiege S, Magnan R, Yeater E, Feldstein Ewing S, Bryan A . Randomized Trial to Reduce Risky Sexual Behavior Among Justice-Involved Adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2020; 60(1):47-56. PMC: 7755031. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.07.009. View

Rosengard C, Stein L, Barnett N, Monti P, Golembeske C, Lebeau-Craven R . Randomized Clinical Trial of Motivational Enhancement of Substance Use Treatment Among Incarcerated Adolescents: Post-Release Condom Non-Use. J HIV AIDS Prev Child Youth. 2009; 8(2):45-64. PMC: 2756690. DOI: 10.1300/J499v08n02_04. View

Hachtel H, Vogel T, Huber C . Mandated Treatment and Its Impact on Therapeutic Process and Outcome Factors. Front Psychiatry. 2019; 10:219. PMC: 6474319. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00219. View

Drieschner K, Verschuur J . Treatment engagement as a predictor of premature treatment termination and treatment outcome in a correctional outpatient sample. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2010; 20(2):86-99. DOI: 10.1002/cbm.757. View

Vreugdenhil C, Doreleijers T, Vermeiren R, Wouters L, van den Brink W . Psychiatric disorders in a representative sample of incarcerated boys in the Netherlands. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003; 43(1):97-104. DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200401000-00019. View

Norcross J, Krebs P, Prochaska J . Stages of change. J Clin Psychol. 2010; 67(2):143-54. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20758. View

Bryan A, Schmiege S, Broaddus M . HIV risk reduction among detained adolescents: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2009; 124(6):e1180-8. PMC: 9017687. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-0679. View

10.

Putnins A . Substance use and the prediction of young offender recidivism. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2003; 22(4):401-8. DOI: 10.1080/09595230310001613912. View

11.

Fuligni A . The Need to Contribute During Adolescence. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018; 14(3):331-343. PMC: 6497551. DOI: 10.1177/1745691618805437. View

12.

Segeren M, Fassaert T, Kea R, de Wit M, Popma A . Exploring Differences in Criminogenic Risk Factors and Criminal Behavior Between Young Adult Violent Offenders With and Without Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2018; 62(4):978-999. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X16674009. View

13.

Guyatt G, Townsend M, BERMAN L, Keller J . A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40(12):1129-33. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90080-4. View

14.

Dahl R, Allen N, Wilbrecht L, Suleiman A . Importance of investing in adolescence from a developmental science perspective. Nature. 2018; 554(7693):441-450. DOI: 10.1038/nature25770. View

15.

Simoneau H, Bergeron J . Factors affecting motivation during the first six weeks of treatment. Addict Behav. 2003; 28(7):1219-41. DOI: 10.1016/s0306-4603(02)00257-5. View

16.

Drieschner K, Lammers S, Van Der Staak C . Treatment motivation: An attempt for clarification of an ambiguous concept. Clin Psychol Rev. 2004; 23(8):1115-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2003.09.003. View

17.

Saunders J, Aasland O, Babor T, De la Fuente J, Grant M . Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption--II. Addiction. 1993; 88(6):791-804. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x. View

18.

Crone E, Dahl R . Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012; 13(9):636-50. DOI: 10.1038/nrn3313. View

19.

Carl L, Schmucker M, Losel F . Predicting Attrition and Engagement in the Treatment of Young Offenders. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019; 64(4):355-374. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X19877593. View

20.

Armelius B, Andreassen T . Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (4):CD005650. PMC: 6885060. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005650.pub2. View