Reports of past alcohol and drug use following participation in a motivation enhancing intervention: Implications for clinical assessment and program evaluation

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy

Ray Daugherty¹  Pamela A Stafford¹  Mark Nason¹  Blair Beadnell²  David B Rosengren³ 

[1]Prevention Research Institute, 841 Corporate Dr., Suite 300, Lexington, KY, 40503, USA

[2]School of Social Work, University of Washington, 4101 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA

[3]Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington, 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 120, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA

关键词: Assessment;    Prevention;    Motivation;    Intervention;    Drug dependence;    Drug abuse;    Alcohol dependence;    Alcohol abuse;    Self-report;   

Others  :  834507
DOI  :  10.1186/1747-597X-7-19

 received in 2011-10-07, accepted in 2012-04-11,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

There is significant interest in the value of motivational approaches that enhance participant readiness to change, but less is known about clients’ self-reports of problematic behavior when participating in such interventions.

Methods

We examined whether participants in a motivationally-based intervention for DUI offenders changed their reports of substance use at postintervention (when reporting on the same 30 days that they reported on at preintervention). Specifically, Study 1 (N = 8,387) tested whether participants in PRIME For Life (PFL) changed their reports about baseline substance levels when asked at postintervention versus at preintervention. Study 2 (N = 192) compared changes in self-reported baseline drinking between PFL and intervention as usual (IAU) participants.

Results

Many participants in Study 1 did not change their reports about how much they used substances during the 30-day period before baseline. Among those who did, the most common change was an increase in reported amounts of baseline drug use, and typical and peak alcohol use. This sample also showed changes in reports of their baseline pattern of high-risk-use (consistent versus occasional). At postintervention, participants who were younger, single, or endorsing more indicators of alcohol dependence were more likely to later report greater frequency of baseline drug use, and greater peak and typical number of baseline drinks. Gender, education, and race were also associated with reporting inconsistency on some behaviors. In Study 2, PFL participants showed greater increases in reports of peak alcohol use compared to IAU, but both conditions showed similar increases for drugs and typical alcohol use.

Conclusions

In both research and clinical settings, a segment of participants may initially report less substance use than they do when asked later about the same baseline period. These preliminary findings suggest clinicians and researchers may find postintervention evaluations yield reports of greater baseline alcohol or drug use for some people. For some behaviors, this may occur more often in interventions that target client motivation. Future research should attempt to identify which reports – preintervention vs. postintervention – better reflect actual baseline substance use.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Rosengren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hoppe MJ, Morrison DM, Gillmore MR, Beadnell B, Higa DH, Leigh BC: Agreement of daily diary and retrospective measures of condom use. AIDS Behav 2008, 12:113-117.
• [2]Leigh BC, Morrison DM, Hoppe MJ, Beadnell B, Gillmore MR: Retrospective assessment of the association between drinking and condom use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 2008, 69:773-776.
• [3]Morris NA, Slocum LA: The Validity of Self-reported Prevalence, Frequency, and Timing of Arrest: An Evaluation of Data Collected Using a Life Event Calendar. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2010, 47:210-240.
• [4]Colon HM, Perez CM, Melendez M, Marrero E, Ortiz AP, Suarez E: The validity of drug use responses in a household survey in Puerto Rico: Comparison of survey responses with urinalysis. Addict Behav 2010, 35:667-672.
• [5]Hagman BT, Cohn AM, Noel NE, Clifford PR: Collateral Informant Assessment in Alcohol Use Research Involving College Students. J Am Coll Heal 2010, 59:82-90.
• [6]Del Boca FK, Darkes J: The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: state of the science and challenges for research. Addiction 2003, 98:1-12.
• [7]Lazowski LE, Miller FG, Boye MW, Miller GA: Efficacy of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-3 (SASSI-3) in identifying substance dependence disorders in clinical settings. J Personal Assess 1998, 71:114-128.
• [8]Saunders JB, AAsland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M: Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): World Health Organization collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption --II. Addiction 1993, 88:791-801.
• [9]Feldstein SW, Miller WR: Does subtle screening for substance abuse work? A review of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI). Addiction 2007, 102:41-50.
• [10]Zaldivar F, Molina AM, Rios FL, Montes JMG: Evaluation of Alcohol and Other Drug Use and the Influence of Social Desirability Direct and Camouflaged Measures. Eur J Psychol Assess 2009, 25:244-251.
• [11]Babor TF, Steinberg K, Anton R, Del Boca F: Talk is cheap: Measuring drinking outcomes in clinical trials. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 2000, 61:55-63.
• [12]Babor TF, Stephens RS, Marlatt GA: Verbal Report Methods in Clinical Research on Alcoholism - Response Bias and Its Minimization. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1987, 48:410-424.
• [13]Del Boca FK, Darkes J: Enhancing the validity and utility of randomized clinical trials in addictions treatment research: II. Participant samples and assessment. Addiction 2007, 102:1194-1203.
• [14]Connors GJ, Maisto SA: Drinking reports from collateral individuals. Addiction 2003, 98:21-29.
• [15]Bessa MA, Mitsuhiro SS, Chalem E, Barros MM, Guinsburg R, Laranjeira R: Underreporting of use of cocaine and marijuana during the third trimester of gestation among pregnant adolescents. Addict Behav 2010, 35:266-269.
• [16]Delaney-Black V, Chiodo LM, Hannigan JH, Greenwald MK, Janisse J, Patterson G, et al.: Just Say "I Don't": Lack of Concordance Between Teen Report and Biological Measures of Drug Use. Pediatrics 2010, 126:887-893.
• [17]Golub A, Liberty HL, Johnson BD: Inaccuracies in self-reports and urinalysis tests: Impacts on monitoring marijuana use trends among arrestees. Journal of Drug Issues 2005, 35:941-965.
• [18]Stinchfield R: Reliability of adolescent self-reported pretreatment alcohol and other drug use. Substance Use & Misuse 1997, 32:425-434.
• [19]Lai DTC, Cahill K: Qin Y. Tang JL: Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2010.
• [20]Sheppard M: Motivational interviewing in the treatment of psychological problems. Br J Psychol 2010, 101:373-374.
• [21]Armstrong MJ, Mottershead TA, Ronksley PE, Hemmelgarn BR: Motivational Interviewing to Improve Weight Loss in Overweight Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Obesity 2010, 18:S86-S87.
• [22]McMurran M: Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic review. Leg Criminol Psychol 2009, 14:83-100.
• [23]Dunn C, Deroo L, Rivara FP: The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: a systematic review. Addiction 2001, 96:1725-1742.
• [24]Hettema J, Steele J, Miller WR: Motivational interviewing. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2005, 1:91-111.
• [25]Hettema JE, Miller WR, Steele JM: A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing techniques in the treatment of alcohol use disorders. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004, 28:74A.
• [26]Meyers RJ, Smith JE: Getting off the fence: Procedures to engage treatment-resistant drinkers. J Subst Abus Treat 1997, 14:467-472.
• [27]Powers MB, Vording MBZS, Emmelkamp PMG: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychother Psychosom 2009, 78:73-80.
• [28]Cullen C: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): A Third Wave Behaviour Therapy. Behav Cogn Psychother 2008, 36:667-673.
• [29]Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC: In Search of How People Change - Applications to Addictive Behaviors. Am Psychol 1992, 47:1102-1114.
• [30]Miller WR, Rollnick S: Motivational Interviewing. Preparing People for Change. 2nd edition. New York: Guilford Press; 2002.
• [31]Miller WR, Benefield RG, Tonigan JS: Enhancing Motivation for Change in Problem Drinking - A Controlled Comparison of 2 Therapist Styles. J Consult Clin Psychol 1993, 61:455-461.
• [32]Daugherty R, O'Bryan T: Prime For Life Instructor Manual Version 8. Prevention Research Institute; 2004.
• [33]Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: Trans-Theoretical Therapy - Toward A More Integrative Model of Change. Psychotherapy-Theory Research and Practice 1982, 19:276-288.
• [34]Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: Stages of Change in the Modification of Problem Behaviors. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1992.
• [35]Rosengren DB: Learning Motivational Interviewing: A Practitioner's Workbook. New York: Guilford Press; 2009.
• [36]Hogan K: The psychology of persuasion: How to persuade other to your way of thinking. Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing; 1996.
• [37]Feng WW: Jun Y. Xu R, A method/macro based on propensity score and mahalanobis distance to reduce bias in treatment comparison. Ref Type: Online Source; 2006.
• [38]Greenfield TK, Kerr WC: Alcohol measurement methodology in epidemiology: recent advances and opportunites. Addiction 2008, 103:1082-1099.
• [39]Greenfield TK, Nayak MB, Bond J, Ye Y, Midanik LT: Maximum quantity consumed and alcohol-related problems: assessing the most alcohol drunk with two measures. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2006, 30:1576-1582.
• [40]Russell M, Light JM, Gruenewald PJ: Alcohol consumption and problems: The relevance of drinking patterns. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004, 28:921-930.
• [41]Moyers TB, Miller WR, Hendrickson SML: How Does Motivational Interviewing Work? Therapist Interpersonal Skill Predicts Client Involvement Within Motivational Interviewing Sessions. J Consult Clin Psychol 2005, 73:590-598.
• [42]Norcross JC: Empirically supported therapy relationships. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2002:3-16.
• [43]Daugherty R, Leukefeld C: Lifestyle Risk Reduction with adults. In The encyclopedia of primary prevention and health promotion. Edited by Gullotta TP, Bloom M. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2003:1079-1086.
• [44]Thompson ML, Daugherty R, Carver V: Alcohol Education in Schools - Toward A Lifestyle Risk-Reduction Approach. J Sch Heal 1984, 54:79-83.
• [45]Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: Trans-Theoretical Therapy - Toward A More Integrative Model of Change. Psychotherapy-Theory Research and Practice 1982, 19:276-288.
• [46]McGuire WJ: Communication-persuasion models for drug education. In Research on methods and programs of drug education. Edited by Goodstadt M. Toronto, Ontario: Addiction Research Foundation; 1974:pp.1-26.
• [47]Petty RE, Brinol P: Persuasion: From single to multiple metacognitive processes. Perspect Psychol Sci 2008, 3:137-147.
• [48]Hedeker D: Gibbons RD: Longitudinal Data Analysis. Hoboken, N.J. Wiley; 2006.
• [49]Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD: SAS system for mixed models. Cary, N. C. SAS Institute, Inc; 1996.