↓ Skip to main content

Active Ingredients and Mechanisms of Change in Motivational Interviewing for Smoking Cessation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Mixed Methods Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Active Ingredients and Mechanisms of Change in Motivational Interviewing for Smoking Cessation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Mixed Methods Study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2021
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.599203
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jos Dobber, Marjolein Snaterse, Corine Latour, Ron Peters, Gerben ter Riet, Wilma Scholte op Reimer, Lieuwe de Haan, Berno van Meijel

Abstract

Background: For patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), smoking is an important risk factor for the recurrence of a cardiovascular event. Motivational interviewing (MI) may increase the motivation of the smokers to stop smoking. Data on MI for smoking cessation in patients with CAD are limited, and the active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI in smoking cessation are largely unknown. Therefore, this study was designed to explore active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI for smoking cessation in smokers with CAD, shortly after a cardiovascular event. Methods: We conducted a qualitative multiple case study of 24 patients with CAD who participated in a randomized trial on lifestyle change. One hundred and nine audio-recorded MI sessions were coded with a combination of the sequential code for observing process exchanges (SCOPE) and the motivational interviewing skill code (MISC). The analysis of the cases consisted of three phases: single case analysis, cross-case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. In a quantitative sequential analysis, we calculated the transition probabilities between the use of MI techniques by the coaches and the subsequent patient statements concerning smoking cessation. Results: In 12 cases, we observed ingredients that appeared to activate the mechanisms of change. Active ingredients were compositions of behaviors of the coaches (e.g., supporting self-efficacy and supporting autonomy) and patient reactions (e.g., in-depth self-exploration and change talk), interacting over large parts of an MI session. The composition of active ingredients differed among cases, as the patient process and the MI-coaching strategy differed. Particularly, change talk and self-efficacy appeared to stimulate the mechanisms of change "arguing oneself into change" and "increasing self-efficacy/confidence." Conclusion: Harnessing active ingredients that target the mechanisms of change "increasing self-efficacy" and "arguing oneself into change" is a good MI strategy for smoking cessation, because it addresses the ambivalence of a patient toward his/her ability to quit, while, after the actual cessation, maintaining the feeling of urgency to persist in not smoking in the patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Librarian 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Unknown 11 65%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 2 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 11 65%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 June 2021.
All research outputs
#20,707,815
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,852
of 30,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#365,046
of 443,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,090
of 1,514 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 443,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,514 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.