Talks that explore your reasons helped a bit, but no better than standard treatment.
HelpedThe short version
Across 88 comparisons, the talks helped people a little more than the other groups did.

- 1 tool
- tested
The review
Who took part
The review pooled 119 studies, mostly with adults who had drinking, drug or tobacco problems. Some included overweight college students and teenagers.
What they did
People had talks with a trained helper that explored their own reasons for change. Some also got feedback from a standard assessment of their habits. The other groups got usual care, leaflets, a similar contact, or a different proven therapy.
What happened
Compared with waiting lists, usual care or leaflets, the talks helped people a little. Compared with other standard therapies, they did no better. The talks raised people's plans to change more than the other groups did, but did not clearly raise their confidence to change. Among the weaker comparisons, the more careful studies found smaller effects. Some counts in the paper's tables do not add up, and the review did not test for missing studies.
What the review found
- HelpedOther outcomes
Across 88 comparisons, the talks helped people a little more than the other groups did.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs people on waiting lists, usual care or leaflets
- No differenceOther outcomes
Across 39 comparisons, the talks did no better than other treatments.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs people given another standard therapy
- HelpedMotivation
Across 17 comparisons, people who had the talks said they intended to change more than the other groups did.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs people on waiting lists, usual care or leaflets · they rated themselves
- No differenceMotivation
Across 9 comparisons, the talks did not raise people's confidence to change more than other groups.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs people on waiting lists, usual care or leaflets · they rated themselves
How solid is this?
- Numbers unreliable
Source
A Meta-Analysis of Motivational Interviewing: Twenty-Five Years of Empirical Studies (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/1049731509347850 (opens in a new tab)

