A pilot study comparing in-person and web-based motivational interviewing among adults with a first-time DUI offense

10Citations
Citations of this article
70Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Driving under the influence (DUI) is a significant problem, and there is a pressing need to develop interventions that reduce future risk. Methods: We pilot-tested the acceptance and efficacy of web-motivational interviewing (MI) and in-person MI interventions among a diverse sample of individuals with a first-time DUI offense. Participants (N = 159) were 65 percent male, 40 percent Hispanic, and an average age of 30 (SD = 9.8). They were enrolled at one of three participating 3-month DUI programs in Los Angeles County and randomized to usual care (UC)-only (36-h program), in-person MI plus UC, or a web-based intervention using MI (web-MI) plus UC. Participants were assessed at intake and program completion. We examined intervention acceptance and preliminary efficacy of the interventions on alcohol consumption, DUI, and alcohol-related consequences. Results: Web-MI and in-person MI participants rated the quality of and satisfaction with their sessions significantly higher than participants in the UC-only condition. However, there were no significant group differences between the MI conditions and the UC-only condition in alcohol consumption, DUI, and alcohol-related consequences. Further, 67 percent of our sample met criteria for alcohol dependence, and the majority of participants in all three study conditions continued to report alcohol-related consequences at follow-up. Conclusions: Participants receiving MI plus UC and UC-only had similar improvements, and a large proportion had symptoms of alcohol dependence. Receiving a DUI and having to deal with the numerous consequences related to this type of event may be significant enough to reduce short-term behaviors, but future research should explore whether more intensive interventions are needed to sustain long-term changes.

Figures

  • Fig. 1 CONSORT diagram. *Denominator is total screened for eligibility (n = 387); **denominator is number eligible (n = 185); ^denominator is number randomized (n = 159); ^^denominator is number allocated to each group (IP-MI n = 51, web-MI n = 54, UC n = 54)
  • Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the study sample
  • Table 2 Differences in within-group outcomes between baseline and follow-up
  • Table 3 Intervention effect estimates of outcomes compared to usual care at 3 months post-baseline

References Powered by Scopus

Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications: Second edition

3952Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Changing physician performance: A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies

2421Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Bias, prevalence and kappa

1658Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Culturally Adapted Digital Mental Health Interventions for Ethnic/Racial Minorities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

37Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Technology-Delivered Adaptations of Motivational Interviewing for the Prevention and Management of Chronic Diseases: Scoping Review

13Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Different demographic and drinking profiles of motorcyclists and car drivers with the first-time offense of driving/riding under the influence of alcohol

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Osilla, K. C., Paddock, S. M., Leininger, T. J., D’Amico, E. J., Ewing, B. A., & Watkins, K. E. (2015). A pilot study comparing in-person and web-based motivational interviewing among adults with a first-time DUI offense. Addiction Science and Clinical Practice, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-015-0039-0

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2406121824

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 17

47%

Researcher 12

33%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 13

38%

Psychology 13

38%

Nursing and Health Professions 5

15%

Social Sciences 3

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0