ÜBERMAD

GoalsReview

Motivational talks beat no treatment for drinking, drugs and diet, but not smoking

HelpedThe short version

Motivational talks cut drinking more than the other group did.

A man lifts a soft-drink bottle off a supermarket shelf and holds it out to a calm counsellor beside his trolley.
1 tool
tested

The review

  1. Who took part

    The 30 trials ranged from 22 to 952 people, with about 206 on average. Most were about drinking (15), drugs (5) or diet and exercise (4).

  2. What they did

    The talks were one-to-one and in person, about 100 minutes in total on average. Some were the whole treatment; others came before other care. Comparison groups got nothing, a brief contact, or another treatment.

  3. What happened

    Compared with nothing or a brief contact, the talks cut drinking by a small to medium amount. Drug use and diet and exercise improved by a medium amount, but smoking and HIV risk did not. Against other treatments the talks did about the same, study quality varied, and smoking and HIV rest on two studies.

What the review found

  1. Helped

    Motivational talks cut drinking more than the other group did.

    Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs people who got nothing or only a brief contact · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

  2. Helped

    Motivational talks cut drug use more than the other group did.

    Pooled analysis of 3 studies · vs people who got nothing or only a brief contact · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

  3. Helped

    Motivational talks helped with diet and exercise problems more than the other group did.

    Pooled analysis of 4 studies · vs people who got nothing or only a brief contact · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

  4. No difference

    Motivational talks did not cut smoking more than the other group did.

    Pooled analysis of 2 studies · vs people who got nothing or only a brief contact · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

How solid is this?

  • Unclear how groups were picked
  • Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
  • Mixes trials with other kinds of study

Source

The Efficacy of Motivational Interviewing: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials (2003)

DOI: 10.1037/0022-006x.71.5.843 (opens in a new tab)

More on goals

See all