Article Details

Research Database: Article Details

Citation:  Dunn, Darnell; Carmel, Atkins; Bumgardner; & Roy-Byrne (2015). Comparing the motivational interviewing integrity in two prevalent models of brief intervention service delivery for primary care settings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 51 47-52.
Title:  Comparing the motivational interviewing integrity in two prevalent models of brief intervention service delivery for primary care settings
Authors:  Dunn, Darnell; Carmel, Atkins; Bumgardner; & Roy-Byrne
Year:  2015
Journal/Publication:  Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Publisher:  Elsevier
DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2014.10.009
Full text:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25515624   
Peer-reviewed?  Yes
NIDILRR-funded?  Yes

Structured abstract:

Background:  The authors of this article compared motivational interviewing integrity in two common brief intervention service delivery models for drug abuse. Brief interventions using a motivational interviewing style were conducted by both routine primary care providers and non-routine care providers using the exact same medical setting, patient population, and Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Treatment (SBIRT) protocol. Fifteen interventionists, including 9 routine primary care providers and 6 non-routine providers, experienced similar Motivational Interviewing trainings and they performed 423 audio-recorded brief interventions. The authors compared the Motivational Interviewing integrity scores for all audio recorded sessions from these two SBIRT models for up to 40 months post MI training. The authors state that “both groups met the lower standard (beginning proficiency in MI) on 4 of 5 MI integrity scores, but non-routine primary care providers met more of the higher standards (competency in MI) than RCPs.” And they concluded that, “There may be limitations with regards to MI fidelity when using RCPs to conduct BIs in some primary care settings. Further experimental investigation is warranted to replicate this finding and identify casual factors of observed differences in MI fidelity.”

Disabilities served:  Alcohol and drug abuse
Interventions:  Motivational interviewing