Do Brief Motivational Interventions Increase Motivation for Change in Drinking Among College Students? A 2-Step Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data

Description

This data repository contains the companion data and analysis codes for Tan, Z., Tanner-Smith, E. E., Walters, S. T., Tan, L., Huh, D., Zhou, Z., Luningham, J. M., Larimer, M. E., & Mun, E.-Y. (2023). Do Brief Motivational Interventions Increase Motivation for Change in Drinking Among College Students? A 2-Step Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data. Alcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research. Abstract Background Brief motivational interventions (BMIs) are one of the most effective individually‐focused alcohol intervention strategies for college students. Despite the central theoretical role of motivation for change in BMIs, it is less clear whether BMIs actually increase motivation to change drinking behavior. We conducted a two‐step meta‐analysis of individual participant data (IPD; 15 trials, N = 5903; 59% women, 72% White) from Project INTEGRATE to examine whether BMIs increased motivation for change. The BMIs included individually‐delivered motivational interviewing with personalized feedback (MI + PF), stand‐alone personalized feedback (PF), and group‐based motivational interviewing (GMI). Methods Different measures and responses used in the original trials were harmonized. Effect size estimates were derived from a model that adjusted for baseline motivation and demographic variables for each trial (step 1) and subsequently combined in a random‐effects meta‐analysis (step 2). Results The overall intervention effect of BMIs on motivation for change was not statistically significant (standard mean difference [SMD]: 0.026, 95% CI: [−0.001, 0.053], p = 0.06, k = 19 comparisons). Of the three subtypes of BMIs, GMI, which tended to provide motivation‐targeted content, had a statistically significant intervention effect on motivation, compared with controls (SMD: 0.055, 95% CI: [0.007, 0.103], p = 0.025, k = 5). By contrast, there was no evidence that MI + PF (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI: [−0.02, 0.10], k = 6, p = 0.20) nor PF increased motivation (SMD = 0.005, 95% CI: [−0.028, 0.039], k = 8, p = 0.75), compared with controls. Post hoc meta‐regression analysis suggested that motivation sharply decreased each month within the first 3 months postintervention (b = −0.050, z = −2.80, p = 0.005 for k = 14). Conclusions Although BMIs provide motivational content and normative feedback and are assumed to motivate behavior change, the results do not wholly support the hypothesis that BMIs improve motivation for change. Changing motivation is difficult to assess during and following interventions, but it is still a theoretically important clinical endpoint. Further, the evidence cautiously suggests that changing motivation may be achievable, especially if motivation‐targeted content components are provided.

Steps to reproduce

1) Download the following files: "Dataset_Step2.xlsx" and "Project_INTEGRATE_Motivation_Analysis_Step2.Rmd" 2) Modify the location of the data file "Dataset_Step2.xlsx" referenced in the R code. 3) Run "Project_INTEGRATE_Motivation_Analysis_Step2.Rmd" in R to replicate the analysis.

Institutions

Categories

Funding

Related Links

Licence