Cited by 111Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Integrating motivational interviewing and self-determination theory with cognitive behavioral therapy to prevent suicide

Open access
Britton, Peter C., Patrick, Heather, Wenzel, Amy, Williams, Geoffrey C.·2011·Cognitive and Behavioral Practice

Abstract

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) has been found to be effective in preventing suicide-related behavior. However, it is often difficult to engage patients who are at-risk in treatment. Motivational Interviewing (MI) has been shown to increase treatment engagement and improve treatment outcomes when it is used to complement other treatments. As a general theory of human motivation that is consistent with MI, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a framework for understanding how MI may be added to CBT to increase treatment engagement and effectiveness. In this paper, we use SDT to explain how MI may complement CBT to reduce suicide-related behavior, provide a case example of using MI with a suicidal patient before CBT-based treatment, and explore future directions for research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cbpra.2009.06.004

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Suicidal ambivalence offers a therapeutic starting point to motivate suicidal individuals to postpone a decision to die by suicide, to engage in treatment, to establish a different way of dealing with suicidal ideation, and to explore "suicide drivers" as well as resilience factors.

    “and offers a therapeutic starting point to motivate suicidal individuals to postpone a decision to die by suicide, to engage in treatment, to establish a different way of dealing with suicidal ideation (20, 23–25) and to explore “suicide drivers” (31) as well as resilience factors.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Britton, P. C., Patrick, H., Wenzel, A., & Williams, G. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Britton, Peter C.
Venue
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-02
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
16-27
ISSN
1077-7229 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1964530419
Cited by
111
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive and Behavioral Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (VA999999)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
motivational interviewing, self-determination theory, cognitive behavioral therapy, suicide prevention, treatment engagement, suicidal behavior, patient motivation, integrative psychotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review