The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: a systematic review
Abstract
Aims. To examine the effectiveness of brief behavioral interventions adapting the principles and techniques of Motivational Interviewing (MI) to four behavioral domains: substance abuse, smoking, HIV risk and diet/exercise. Design. We conducted a systematic review of 29 randomized trials of MI interventions. Data on methodological quality were extracted and tabulated. Between‐group behavior change effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated for each study. Findings. Due to varying intervention time lengths, targeted problem behaviors, settings and interventionists' backgrounds and skill levels, outcomes were not combined meta‐analytically. Sixty per cent of the 29 studies yielded at least one significant behavior change effect size. No significant association between length of follow‐up time and magnitude of effect sizes was found across studies. There was substantial evidence that MI is an effective substance abuse intervention method when used by clinicians who are non‐specialists in substance abuse treatment, particularly when enhancing entry to and engagement in more intensive substance abuse treatment treatment‐as‐usual. Data were inadequate to judge the effect of MI in the other domains. Client attribute‐treatment interactions were understudied and the sparse and inconsistent findings revealed little about the mechanism by which MI works or for whom it works best. Conclusion. To determine more effectively how well MI works in domains other than substance abuse and for whom it works best in all domains, researchers should study MI with risk behaviors other than substance abuse, while examining both interactions and the theoretical components of MI.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hettema, J., Steele, J., & Miller, W. R. (2005) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143833 · Cited by 1,803
Toward a theory of motivational interviewing
Miller, W. R., & Rose, G. S. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0016830 · Cited by 1,603
The efficacy of motivational interviewing: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials
Burke, B. L., Arkowitz, H., & Menchola, M. (2003) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.71.5.843 · Cited by 1,575
Golden, S. D., & Earp, J. A. L. (2012) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/1090198111418634 · Cited by 1,394
A Randomized Trial of Methods to Help Clinicians Learn Motivational Interviewing.
Miller, W. R., Yahne, C. E., Moyers, T. B., Martinez, J., & Pirritano, M. (2004) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.72.6.1050 · Cited by 1,075
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunn, C., Deroo, L., & Rivara, F. P.
- Venue
- Addiction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1725-1742
- ISSN
- 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0443
- OpenAlex
- W1972663316
- Cited by
- 902
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961217253.x
- The paper
- Dunn, C., Deroo, L., & Rivara, F. P. (2001). The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: a systematic review. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961217253.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.