Cited by 581Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

THE EFFICACY OF MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING AS A BRIEF INTERVENTION FOR EXCESSIVE DRINKING: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW

VASILAKI, EIRINI I., HOSIER, STEVEN G., COX, W. MILES·2006·Alcohol and Alcoholism

Abstract

AIMS: (1) To examine whether or not motivational interviewing (MI) is more efficacious than no intervention in reducing alcohol consumption; (2) to examine whether or not MI is as efficacious as other interventions. METHOD: A literature search followed by a meta-analytic review of randomized control trials of MI interventions. Aggregated between-group effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated for each study. RESULTS: Literature search revealed 22 relevant studies, of which nine compared brief MI with no treatment, and met methodological criteria for inclusion. In these, the aggregate effect size was 0.18 (95% C.I. 0.07, 0.29), but was greater 0.60 (95% C.I. 0.36, 0.83) when, in a post-hoc analysis, the follow-up period was three months or less. Its efficacy also increased when dependent drinkers were excluded. There were nine studies meeting methodological criteria for inclusion which compared brief MI with another treatment (one of a diverse set of interventions), yielding an aggregate effect size of 0.43(95% C.I. 0.17, 0.70). The literature review pointed to several factors which may influence MI's long-term efficacy effectiveness of MI. CONCLUSIONS: Brief MI is effective. Future studies should focus on possible predictors of efficacy such as gender, age, employment status, marital status, mental health, initial expectations, readiness to change, and whether the population is drawn from treatment-seeking or non-treatment-seeking populations. Also, the components of MI should be compared to determine which are most responsible for maintaining long-term changes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/alcalc/agl016

Cites

10 of 10 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
VASILAKI, E. I., HOSIER, S. G., & COX, W. M.
Affiliations
Bangor University (GB)
Corresponding author
VASILAKI, EIRINI I.
Venue
Alcohol and Alcoholism
Published
2006-03-17
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
328-335
ISSN
  • 0735-0414 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3502
OpenAlex
W2112454287
Cited by
581
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 47
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Alcohol and Alcoholism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
motivational interviewing, brief intervention, excessive drinking, alcohol consumption reduction, treatment efficacy, predictors of treatment outcome, long-term efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Aging, Alcoholism, Attitude, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Psychotherapy, Brief, Sex Characteristics, Treatment Outcome

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