A randomized controlled pilot study of motivational interviewing for patients with psychotic and drug use disorders
Open accessAbstract
AIMS: This pilot study examined the efficacy of a two-session motivational interview adapted for dually diagnosed psychotic and drug-related disordered patients (DDMI) in comparison to a two-session standard psychiatric interview (SI). DESIGN: The study used a randomized controlled trial design. Participants received either DDMI or SI and were assessed at baseline, 4-, 8- and 12-week follow-up points. The principal analysis for examination of treatment effects across time was a random effects regression model. SETTING: Both DDMI and SI interviews served as pre-admission intake interventions to an ambulatory specialty dual diagnosis intensive out-patient and partial hospital program. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-four treatment-seeking participants (DDMI = 24; SI = 20) who had co-occurring psychotic and drug-related disorders were assigned randomly to the treatment conditions. Measurements Primary outcomes were days of primary drug use, secondary drug use, alcohol use and psychotropic medication adherence, proportion of participants admitted into the program and days of attendance. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: DDMI and SI resulted in improved treatment outcomes, but there were no main effects for the sample as a whole. Separate examination of primary cocaine and primary marijuana using subsamples, however, suggested that DDMI resulted in significantly better primary drug treatment outcomes for the cocaine-using group, whereas SI resulted in significantly better primary drug treatment outcomes for the marijuana-using group. These findings indicate that MI may not work equally well for all types of psychotic disordered dually diagnosed patients and that alternative approaches may be as effective in fostering improved substance use treatment outcomes for subgroups of these individuals.
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
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.
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?
There was only one study in which the participants were explicitly described as having mental problems (Martino 2006).
“There was only one study in which the participants were explicitly described as having mental problems (Martino 2006)”
From Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction (2023) · cites this paper as Martino 2006
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 97
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Hettema J., Steele J., Miller W. R. Motivational interview- ing. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2005; 1: 91-111.
- Baker A., Lewin T., Reichler H., Clancy R., Carr V., Garret R. et al. Brief intervention for substance use within psychiatric in-patient services: findings from a randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2002; 97: 1329-37.
- Baker A., Lewin T., Reichler H., Clancy R., Carr V., Garret R. et al. Integration of substance use treatment within psychi- atric in-patient services indicated: findings from a random- ized controlled trial. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002; 106: 233- 40.
- Ziedonis D. M., Fischer W. Motivation-based assessment and treatment of substance abuse in patients with schizo- phrenia. New Direct Psychiatry 1996; 16: 1-8.
- First M. B., Spitzer R. L., Gibbon M., Williams J. B. W. Struc- tured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders. Patient edition. New York: Biometrics Research Department; 1995.
- Martino S., McCance-Katz E., Workman J., Boozang J. The development of a dual diagnosis partial hospital program. Continuum 1995; 2: 145-65.
- Sobell L. C., Sobell M. B. Timeline followback: a technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption. In: Allen J., editor. Psychosocial and Biological Methods. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 1992, p. 41-72.
- Heather N., Rollnick S., Bell A., Richmond R. Effects of brief counseling among heavy drinkers identified on general hos- pital wards. Drug Alcohol Rev 1996; 15: 29-38.
- Authors
- Martino, S., Carroll, K. M., Nich, C., & Rounsaville, B. J.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Martino, Steve
- Venue
- Addiction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1479-1492
- ISSN
- 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0443
- OpenAlex
- W2057386216
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Addiction (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Yale University
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA009241)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Keywords
- motivational interviewing, dual diagnosis, psychosis, substance use disorders, co-occurring disorders, cocaine use, cannabis use, alcohol consumption, psychotropic medication adherence, treatment attendance, partial hospitalization
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Motivation, Patient Compliance, Pilot Projects, Psychotic Disorders, Treatment Outcome, Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry), Substance-Related Disorders
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