If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||
![]() AddictionVolume 101 Issue 10, Pages 1479 - 1492 Published Online: 4 Aug 2006 Journal compilation © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction Published on behalf of the Society for the Study of Addiction
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 135K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking RESEARCH REPORT A randomized controlled pilot study of motivational interviewing for patients with psychotic and drug use disorders Copyright © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 Society for the Study of Addiction KEYWORDS Dual diagnosis • motivational interviewing • psychosis ABSTRACTAims 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. Submitted 6 September 2005; initial review completed 20 January 2006; final version accepted 31 March 2006 |