The effect on problematic drinking behavior of a brief motivational interview shortly after a first arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol: A randomized trial

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction

BACKGROUND

Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.

Researching Mitigation of Alcohol Binge Drinking in Polydrug Abuse: KCNK13 and RASGRF2 Gene(s) Risk Polymorphisms Coupled with Genetic Addiction Risk Severity (GARS) Guiding Precision Pro-Dopamine Regulation

Excessive alcohol intake, e.g., binge drinking, is a serious and mounting public health problem in the United States and throughout the world. Hence the need for novel insights into the underlying neurobiology that may help improve prevention and therapeutic strategies. Therefore, our group employed a darkness-induced alcohol intake protocol to define the reward deficiency domains of alcohol and other substance use disorders in terms of reward pathways' reduced dopamine signaling and its restoration via specifically-designed therapeutic compounds. It has been determined that KCNK13 and RASGRF2 genes, respectively, code for potassium two pore domain channel subfamily K member 13 and Ras-specific guanine nucleotide-releasing factor 2, and both genes have important dopamine-related functions pertaining to alcohol binge drinking. We present a hypothesis that identification of KCNK13 and RASGRF2 genes' risk polymorphism, coupled with genetic addiction risk score (GARS)-guided precision pro-dopamine regulation, will mitigate binge alcohol drinking. Accordingly, we review published reports on the benefits of this unique approach and provide data on favorable outcomes for both binge-drinking animals and drunk drivers, including reductions in alcohol intake and prevention of relapse to drinking behavior. Since driving under the influence of alcohol often leads to incarceration rather than rehabilitation, there is converging evidence to support the utilization of GARS with or without KCNK13 and RASGRF2 risk polymorphism in the legal arena, whereby the argument that "determinism" overrides the "free will" account may be a plausible defense strategy. Obviously, this type of research is tantamount to helping resolve a major problem related to polydrug abuse.

BRIEF MOTIVATIONAL INTERVENTION FOR SUBSTANCE USE MAY DECREASE VIOLENCE AMONG HEAVY ALCOHOL USERS IN A JAIL DIVERSION PROGRAM

Rates of harmful alcohol use are high among justice-involved individuals and may contribute to violent recidivism. Robust treatments for alcohol-related violence in criminal justice systems are thus a public health priority. In this analysis of existing randomized controlled trial data (N = 105), we examined the impact of a brief motivational intervention (BMI) for harmful substance use on violent recidivism among individuals in a pretrial jail diversion program. Results indicated that, after controlling for violence history, the intervention's impact on violent recidivism was moderated by baseline harmful alcohol use. Specifically, among people with severe alcohol problems at baseline, the BMI + standard care group had less violent recidivism at a 1-year follow-up than participants randomized to standard care alone. This finding was unchanged when we accounted for psychopathic traits. Our study provides preliminary evidence that a BMI may be useful for decreasing violent recidivism among heavy drinkers in criminal justice systems.

Treatment Initiation and Alcohol Use Violations Among Adults with DWI Arrests Who Received a Tailored Brief Intervention

Objective

This program evaluation examined rates of treatment initiation and alcohol related violations among adults who completed a brief motivational interviewing (BMI) session after a driving while intoxicated arrest.

Method

Adults attending orientation for pretrial bond supervision were assessed for eligibility to receive services by counselors in an outpatient clinic. A total of 118 male and female adults with DWI arrests completed a single BMI session. Treatment initiation was assessed one-week after the BMI session and alcohol-related violations were assessed 6-months later.

Results

Fifty-three percent of those with DWI arrests who received the BMI session-initiated treatment and of those who initiated treatment, alcohol-related violations were significantly lower than for those who did not initiate treatment.

Conclusions

The results provide preliminary support that a single session BMI delivered soon after arrest and before pretrial conditions are implemented has promise for spurring clients to take steps to initiate treatment and is related to better rates of compliance with alcohol-related pretrial conditions.

A test of core psychopathic traits as a moderator of the efficacy of a brief motivational intervention for substance-using offenders

OBJECTIVE

In a randomized controlled trial we studied a brief motivational intervention (BMI) for substance use, examining core psychopathic traits as a moderator of treatment efficacy.

METHOD

Participants were 105 males and females who were 18 years of age and older and in a pretrial jail diversion program. The sample was approximately 52% Black and other minorities and 48% White. Outcome variables at a 6-month follow-up were frequency of substance use (assessed with the Timeline Follow-back Interview and objective toxicology screens), substance use consequences (Short Inventory of Problems-Alcohol and Drug version), and self-reported participation in nonstudy mental health and/or substance use treatment. Psychopathy was assessed using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).

RESULTS

BMI interacted with core psychopathic traits to account for 7% of the variance in substance use at follow-up. Treatment was associated with greater use among individuals with high levels of core psychopathic traits. Toxicology screening results were consistent with self-report data. The treatment and standard care groups did not differ on substance use consequences or nonstudy treatment participation at follow-up, and no moderation was found with these outcomes. An exploratory analysis indicated that low levels of affective traits of psychopathy were associated with benefit from the BMI in terms of decreased substance use.

DISCUSSION

Findings suggest that caution is warranted when applying BMIs among offenders; individuals with high levels of core psychopathic traits may not benefit and may be hindered in recovery. Conversely, they indicate that a low-psychopathy subgroup of offenders benefits from these brief and efficient treatments for substance use.

Effectiveness of interventions for convicted DUI offenders in reducing recidivism: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature

BACKGROUND

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a major cause of death and disability. Although a broad array of programs designed to curb DUI incidents are currently offered to both first-time and recidivist DUI offenders, existing evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs have reported mixed results.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the results of DUI program evaluations and determine the strength of the available evidence for reducing recidivism for different types of programs.

METHODS

A systematic review of all EBSCO databases, EMBASE, PubMed, ProQuest, Sociological Abstracts and TRIS was conducted to identify evaluations of treatments/interventions to prevent DUI offenses. Additional articles were identified from reference lists of relevant articles.

RESULTS

A total of 42 relevant studies were identified by the search strategy. Of these, 33 utilized non-experimental evaluation designs or reported insufficient data to allow effect sizes to be calculated, making meta-analysis unfeasible. Evaluations of several different program types reported evidence of some level of effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Because of the general lack of high quality evidence assessing the effectiveness of DUI prevention programs, it is not possible to make conclusive statements about the types of programs that are likely to be most effective. Nonetheless, there was some evidence to support the effectiveness of programs that utilize intensive supervision and education. There is a need for future evaluations to adopt more scientifically rigorous research designs to establish the effects of these programs.