A randomized controlled pilot study of motivational interviewing for patients with psychotic and drug use disorders
Article first published online: 4 AUG 2006
Volume 101, Issue 10, pages 1479–1492, October 2006
How to Cite
Martino, S., Carroll, K. M., Nich, C. and Rounsaville, B. J. (2006), A randomized controlled pilot study of motivational interviewing for patients with psychotic and drug use disorders. Addiction, 101: 1479–1492. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01554.x
- Issue published online: 1 SEP 2006
- Article first published online: 4 AUG 2006
- Submitted 6 September 2005; initial review completed 20 January 2006; final version accepted 31 March 2006
- Dual diagnosis;
- motivational interviewing;
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.