SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Article 1 Brad W. Lundahl, B. W., Kunz,C., Brownell,C., Tollefson, D., & Brian L. Burke, B. L. (2010). A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: Twenty-five years of empirical studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(2) 137-160. DOI: 10.1177/1049731509347850
The authors investigated the unique contribution motivational interviewing (MI) has on counseling outcomes and how MI compares with other interventions. Method: A total of 119 studies were subjected to a meta-analysis. Targeted outcomes included substance use (tobacco, alcohol, drugs, marijuana), health-related behaviors (diet, exercise, safe sex), gambling, and engagement in treatment variables. Results: Judged against weak comparison groups, MI produced statistically significant, durable results in the small effect range (average g = 0.28). Judged against specific treatments, MI produced nonsignificant results average g = 0.09). MI was robust across many moderators, although feedback (Motivational Enhancement Therapy [MET]), delivery time, manualization, delivery mode (group vs. individual), and ethnicity moderated outcomes. Conclusions: MI contributes to counseling efforts, and results are influenced by participant and delivery factors.
Questions to Consider:
Given MI’s increased utilization since the 1980s, why do you think this counseling technique has been so effective with behavior change?
As an EB research process, how did this meta-analysis contribute to refining MI efficacy?
What are the targeted goals of MI for a client? Is MI effective for most ages and ethnic groups?
Article 2 Davis, C. C., Claudius, M., Palinkas, L. A., Wong, J. B., & Leslie, L. K. (2012). Putting families in the center. Family perspectives on decision making and ADHD and implications for ADHD care. Journal of Attention Disorders, 16(8), 675-684. doi: 10.1177/1087054711413077
Components of family-centered care were examined in families' stories about treatment decision-making for their child with ADHD. Twenty-eight families participated in qualitative interviews that addressed families’ perspectives on (a) the treatment decision-making process, (b) the cause and impact of their child’s symptoms, and (c) treatment goals and preferences. Results: The majority of families preferred to be primary or shared decision makers regarding treatment decisions. Families’ perspectives on the cause of the child’s symptoms varied and often were not consistent with a biomedical framework. Families described multiple areas of impairment on child, family relationships, and family functioning. Perspectives toward evidence-based treatments were mixed, with families also expressing interest in and pursuing interventions not delineated in current treatment guidelines.
Questions to consider:
What are the primary objectives of a medical home model for children with special health care needs (CSHCN)? Which professionals are included in this model?
How does the family participate in the medical decision-making process? What role does the physician have in providing non-medical care to the child with ADHD?
Was a holistic approach taken by the providers to understand the family perspectives on their child's ADHD cause(s), management and treatment? Did the families' change their perspectives over time with more interaction from the health professionals?