Home > Promising Practices > Motivational Interviewing and Feedback for College Drinkers

Motivational Interviewing and Feedback for College Drinkers

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

This is a secondary intervention with the goal of modifying and treating drinking behavior in its early stages before it results in more serious consequences such as death. The intervention can be applied to any college student that has engaged in binge drinking. High alcohol consumption among college students leads to adverse individual health consequences as well as ramifications for the wider population.

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a unique kind of counseling that seeks to actively change certain lifestyle habits or behavior. "Feedback" involves a personal analysis of students’ drinking habits and how they compare to the behavior of other students. Ph.D. level counselors and clinical psychology doctoral students facilitate the motivational interviews.

Goal / Mission

The goal of the promising practice is to reduce binge-drinking behavior in college students using motivational interviewing and personalized feedback techniques.

Impact

At an eight-week follow-up, all four groups reduced their consumption, peak BAC, consequences, and dependence symptoms.

Results / Accomplishments

A randomized controlled trial was used to evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) and personalized feedback in reducing binge-drinking among college students. There were 279 student study participants that were split into four treatment groups. The first group had feedback alone (n=67), the second had a single MI session and a feedback report (n=73), the third had a single session of MI without a feedback report (n= 70), and the last had Assessment only (n=69.) Participants were assessed at three different times: baseline, 3-month follow-up, and a 6-month follow-up. One of the goals of the study was to find out whether implementing an intervention has an effect over assessment only approaches. Changes in the composite measure over the 6 month period showed that the Motivational Interviewing with Feedback (MIF) intervention made a significant difference in behavior (p<0.001). When looking at the MIF intervention against just the Assessment Only (AO) group there was a significant decrease in drinks consumed per week (p<0.01 at the 6-month follow-up). The baseline measurement for drinks per week was 15.5 standard drinks. After going through MIF participants reported consuming 5.26 less drinks per week than the participants in the AO group.

About this Promising Practice

Organization(s)
University of Texas School of Public Health
Primary Contact
Scott T. Walters
University of North Texas Health Science Center
School of Public Health
3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., EAD 709
Fort Worth, TX 76107-2699
(817) 735-2365
Scott.Walters@unthsc.edu
https://profile.hsc.unt.edu/profilesystem/viewprof...
Topics
Health / Alcohol & Drug Use
Health / Adolescent Health
Organization(s)
University of Texas School of Public Health
Source
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Location
Dallas, TX
For more details
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17345916
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/753N-8...
Target Audience
Teens, Adults, Women, Men
Submitted By
Namitha Malakkla, Anoop Muniyappa, Udani Kadurugamuwa - UC Berkeley School of Public Health

Related Promising Practices

  1. Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention of College Students (BASICS)
  2. Challenging College Alcohol Abuse
  3. Environmental Prevention of DUI Among College Students

More

Related Content for: Motivational Interviewing and Feedback for College Drinkers

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.
Santa Cruz