↓ Skip to main content

Developing the Moti-4 intervention, assessing its feasibility and pilot testing its effectiveness

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Developing the Moti-4 intervention, assessing its feasibility and pilot testing its effectiveness
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1826-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hans B. Dupont, Paul Lemmens, Gerald Adriana, Dike van de Mheen, Nanne K. de Vries

Abstract

The Moti-4 intervention was developed to prevent addiction and other health problems among vulnerable adolescent cannabis users. The aims of Moti-4 are to reduce the use of cannabis among adolescents and to encourage their motivation to change their behavior. Intervention Mapping, a systematic approach to developing theory- and evidence-based interventions, was used to develop a protocol for the intervention. The process of developing the intervention also used the method of responsive evaluation to explore the opinions of the immediate target group and intermediaries (N = 31). Feasibility was assessed in 9 interviews and analyzed in grids. A quantitative pilot analysis involving a pre- and post-assessment in 31 subjects assessed whether the intervention was able to reduce drug use and would change intentions to change drug use behavior. Using Intervention Mapping resulted in the development of a substantial four-session intervention with a clear manual and training for prevention workers. The choice of 12 consecutive steps was based on the Trans Theoretical Model of Behavior Change, Motivational Interviewing, Theory of Planned Behavior and the Self Determination Theory. Positive aspects of working with Moti-4 were assessed in a feasibility study. Criticism by users has led to improvements to the manual. In the pilot study, the average weekly amount spent on cannabis decreased significantly from an average €17.77 to €11,95 in the period after the intervention, with a medium effect size (d = 0.36). Likewise, a significant decrease was found in the frequency of use during the past week, from 4.3 to 2.4 (d = .52). As to motivation to change, a statistically significant increase was found in planning (d = .44) and a large increase in the desire to stop (d = .76). The change in the motivation to smoke less cannabis was small. Intervention Mapping proved to be a useful approach for the development of the intervention, using a productive combination of theory and community knowledge. The pre- and post-test pilot study showed that the intervention generally brought about a considerable positive change in the two principle targets, cannabis use and motivation. There is a need for further (controlled) research into its effectiveness and implementation as a standard method in addiction prevention services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 1%
Indonesia 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,503
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,338
of 14,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,802
of 266,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#181
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 266,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.