1 / 18

Group First Step Brief Motivational Interviewing with Statistically High Risk Groups

Group First Step Brief Motivational Interviewing with Statistically High Risk Groups. Julie Lyzinski, M.Ed., L.P.C. Tamarah Smith-Dyer, M.S. Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Program Initiatives University of Pennsylvania. Background. Brief Motivational Interviewing (BMI)

murrayc
Download Presentation

Group First Step Brief Motivational Interviewing with Statistically High Risk Groups

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Group First StepBrief Motivational Interviewing with Statistically High Risk Groups Julie Lyzinski, M.Ed., L.P.C. Tamarah Smith-Dyer, M.S. Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Program Initiatives University of Pennsylvania

  2. Background • Brief Motivational Interviewing (BMI) • B.A.S.I.C.S. model: Well Researched Effectiveness* • Based on: • Harm Reduction • Stages of Change Theory • Recommended: NIAAA (2002) tier 1 • Effective: With Individuals* • Efficient: Ideal for use in college settings (Dimeff, *(Dimeff, L. A. et al., 1999; Walters & Baer, 2006; NIAAA, 2002).

  3. Why Cohort-Based Intervention? • Addresses the impact of group culture on high risk AOD behaviors • Peer influence is reported as: • The most common environmental risk factor for alcohol use in adolescence * • The single best predictor of young adult drinking* • Community normsare linked to drinking rates.** • Research of cohort BMI interventions is limited. *Jessor & Jessor (1977) and Kandel & Andrews (1987) **Walters & Baer (2006) (p. 5)

  4. Why Cohort-Based Intervention? • Group First Step • Facilitates change within a specific group's culture • In turn, creates safer, healthier group environments • AND simultaneously impacts individuals' behavior within the group.

  5. Background • BMI in a group setting • Strengths • Increases access/decrease resources • Addresses cultural/environmental contributors to high risk drinking -Group traditions (formal/informal) -Attitudes toward AOD use -Group expectations/Peer pressure • Impacts campus wide behaviors • Weakness • Limited research

  6. Using BMI in a Group Intervention Components: • Pre-survey(online) • Individual feedback form(email) • Group feedback(verbally during meeting) • Group meeting(~2 hours): • Risk Behavior Continuum • Small/large group discussion • Group data feedback • Identify misperceptions/discrepancies • Education/information • Harm Reduction • Post-survey(online)

  7. Using BMI in a Group Risk Behavior Continuum: • 12 realistic scenarios involving AOD • Break into groups of 4-5 • Students rate the scenarios (high, moderate or low risk) • Return to large group to discuss ratings: • Why? • If high risk, what would make the situation moderate or low risk? • If low risk, at what point would this become a high risk situation?

  8. Using BMI in a Group Example: “A student smokes marijuana 3 or more times a week.” Common response: low to moderate risk *some will think it is high risk Discussion points: • How many of you have smoked pot in the past 2 months? • Challenge w/ survey data • What do you know about marijuana? • What level of use would make this scenario high risk? • Common response: daily or several times a day • What risks are involved with this level of use? • What risks are involved with your definition of “high” risk use? • Some key information • Does this change your perspective? If so, how?

  9. Using BMI in a GroupPre- Post Assessment / Personalized Feedback Assessment: • Measure high risk behaviors • Measure negative consequences • Measure protective factors • Measure culture change

  10. Using BMI in a GroupPre- Post Assessment / Personalized Feedback Feedback: • Individualized feedback on BAC levels: • last, highest & typical drinking occasion • based on students sex, weight, time, quantity provided in survey • Information about how to stay safe • Define “what is a drink”

  11. Using BMI in a Group • Assessment and Feedback

  12. NATIONAL DATA: Effectiveness of BMIIndividuals • Substantial amount of literature showing significant positive changes in drinking and related behaviors • See reference sheet

  13. NATIONAL DATA: Effectiveness of BMIGroups- Unrelated students • Limited research • 1992 thru 2007: • Four studies (2 experimental/2 pre-post)* • Involved unrelated students • Significant decreases in • Alcohol consumption • BAC *see reference sheet

  14. NATIONAL DATA: Effectiveness of BMIGroups- Related students • One study (2001) • Received both individual & group intervention • Significant decreases in • Alcohol consumption • BAC

  15. PENN DATA: Effectiveness of BMIMeasures of High Risk Drinking • Measures included • BINGE DRINKING (4/5 drinks last 2 weeks) + BAC (>.08) • High risk drinking + FREQUENCY (4+ last 2 weeks) • Chronic high risk drinking

  16. PENN DATA: Effectiveness of BMIIndividuals & Groups(combine data) • Population level assessment • Annual Alcohol, Other Drug & Wellness survey • Compared changes between ’05 and ’08 • Significant decreases • For entire population • Significantly greater decreases for FS participants

  17. PENN DATA: Effectiveness of BMIIndividuals & Groups(combine data) First StepNo First Step N 1317 9517 Binge Drinking -10% -7% Chronic HR Drinking -14% -7% Negative Consequences -19% -16% Marijuana Use -20% -8% Cocaine Use -4% -2% Table 1. Decreases in AOD Use and Related Behaviors (AY 2004/05 – AY 2007/08)

  18. PENN DATA: Effectiveness of BMIGroups of Fraternities & Sororities • Program Participant Assessment • Pre/Post surveys • Compared 2 weeks prior and 2 months post • Results • Reflective of program goals • HIGH RISK DRINKING: Decreased • PROTECTIVE FACTORS: Increased • NEGATIVE CONS.: Decreased

More Related