↓ Skip to main content

A pilot study comparing in-person and web-based motivational interviewing among adults with a first-time DUI offense

Overview of attention for article published in Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
A pilot study comparing in-person and web-based motivational interviewing among adults with a first-time DUI offense
Published in
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13722-015-0039-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Chan Osilla, Susan M. Paddock, Thomas J. Leininger, Elizabeth J. D’Amico, Brett A. Ewing, Katherine E. Watkins

Abstract

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a significant problem, and there is a pressing need to develop interventions that reduce future risk. We pilot-tested the acceptance and efficacy of web-motivational interviewing (MI) and in-person MI interventions among a diverse sample of individuals with a first-time DUI offense. Participants (N = 159) were 65 percent male, 40 percent Hispanic, and an average age of 30 (SD = 9.8). They were enrolled at one of three participating 3-month DUI programs in Los Angeles County and randomized to usual care (UC)-only (36-h program), in-person MI plus UC, or a web-based intervention using MI (web-MI) plus UC. Participants were assessed at intake and program completion. We examined intervention acceptance and preliminary efficacy of the interventions on alcohol consumption, DUI, and alcohol-related consequences. Web-MI and in-person MI participants rated the quality of and satisfaction with their sessions significantly higher than participants in the UC-only condition. However, there were no significant group differences between the MI conditions and the UC-only condition in alcohol consumption, DUI, and alcohol-related consequences. Further, 67 percent of our sample met criteria for alcohol dependence, and the majority of participants in all three study conditions continued to report alcohol-related consequences at follow-up. Participants receiving MI plus UC and UC-only had similar improvements, and a large proportion had symptoms of alcohol dependence. Receiving a DUI and having to deal with the numerous consequences related to this type of event may be significant enough to reduce short-term behaviors, but future research should explore whether more intensive interventions are needed to sustain long-term changes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 25%
Student > Master 11 21%
Librarian 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Psychology 11 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,760,170
of 11,428,083 outputs
Outputs from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#76
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,908
of 261,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,428,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 261,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.