↓ Skip to main content

Motivational interviewing for the prevention of alcohol misuse in young adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
254 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Motivational interviewing for the prevention of alcohol misuse in young adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007025.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R Foxcroft, Lindsey Coombes, Sarah Wood, Debby Allen, Nerissa ML Almeida Santimano, Maria Teresa Moreira

Abstract

Alcohol use and misuse in young people is a major risk behaviour for mortality and morbidity. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a popular technique for addressing excessive drinking in young adults. To assess the effects of motivational interviewing (MI) interventions for preventing alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems in young adults. We identified relevant evidence from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2015), EMBASE (January 1988 to July 2015), and PsycINFO (1985 to July 2015). We also searched clinical trial registers and handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. We included randomised controlled trials in young adults up to the age of 25 years comparing MIs for prevention of alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems with no intervention, assessment only or alternative interventions for preventing alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included a total of 84 trials (22,872 participants), with 70/84 studies reporting interventions in higher risk individuals or settings. Studies with follow-up periods of at least four months were of more interest in assessing the sustainability of intervention effects and were also less susceptible to short-term reporting or publication bias. Overall, the risk of bias assessment showed that these studies provided moderate or low quality evidence.At four or more months follow-up, we found effects in favour of MI for the quantity of alcohol consumed (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.15 to -0.06 or a reduction from 13.7 drinks/week to 12.5 drinks/week; moderate quality evidence); frequency of alcohol consumption (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07 or a reduction in the number of days/week alcohol was consumed from 2.74 days to 2.52 days; moderate quality evidence); and peak blood alcohol concentration, or BAC (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.05, or a reduction from 0.144% to 0.131%; moderate quality evidence).We found a marginal effect in favour of MI for alcohol problems (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00 or a reduction in an alcohol problems scale score from 8.91 to 8.18; low quality evidence) and no effects for binge drinking (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02, moderate quality evidence) or for average BAC (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.08; moderate quality evidence). We also considered other alcohol-related behavioural outcomes, and at four or more months follow-up, we found no effects on drink-driving (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.10; moderate quality of evidence) or other alcohol-related risky behaviour (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.01; moderate quality evidence).Further analyses showed that there was no clear relationship between the duration of the MI intervention (in minutes) and effect size. Subgroup analyses revealed no clear subgroup effects for longer-term outcomes (four or more months) for assessment only versus alternative intervention controls; for university/college vs other settings; or for higher risk vs all/low risk participants.None of the studies reported harms related to MI. The results of this review indicate that there are no substantive, meaningful benefits of MI interventions for preventing alcohol use, misuse or alcohol-related problems. Although we found some statistically significant effects, the effect sizes were too small, given the measurement scales used in the included studies, to be of relevance to policy or practice. Moreover, the statistically significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, and the quality of evidence is not strong, implying that any effects could be inflated by risk of bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 249 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 25%
Unspecified 36 14%
Researcher 36 14%
Student > Bachelor 34 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Other 63 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 34%
Psychology 43 17%
Unspecified 42 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 13%
Social Sciences 23 9%
Other 27 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2019.
All research outputs
#564,021
of 13,699,002 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,723
of 10,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,189
of 263,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,699,002 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.