Motivational Interviewing for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Comprehensive Clinical and Research Review

Overview

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a collaborative, person-centered counseling style designed to help people resolve ambivalence about behavior change. Rather than telling someone what to do, MI draws out a person's own reasons for change — and then strengthens those reasons through careful listening and strategic conversation. For alcohol use disorder (AUD), MI is the most extensively studied brief behavioral intervention in the clinical literature, with a research base spanning hundreds of randomized controlled trials, multiple Cochrane systematic reviews, and decades of real-world implementation across primary care, specialty addiction treatment, and community settings.

MI is not simply "being encouraging." It has a defined structure, measurable techniques, fidelity assessment tools, and a documented — if modest — evidence base. Understanding both what MI can and cannot do is essential for clinicians, health systems, and people seeking help for alcohol problems.

Foundations: Miller, Rollnick, and the Spirit of MI

MI was developed by William Miller in 1983 and later refined in collaboration with Stephen Rollnick. It emerged as a direct response to the confrontational approaches that dominated AUD treatment at the time — approaches that often labeled people as "in denial" and used pressure or shame to push them toward change. Research consistently showed those methods were not only ineffective but sometimes harmful.

MI is built on four core elements of spirit:

• Collaboration — The clinician and client work as partners, not as expert and patient.
• Evocation — The clinician draws out the client's own motivations rather than installing new ones from the outside.
• Autonomy — The client's right to make their own decisions is respected and affirmed.
• Compassion — The clinician acts in the client's genuine interest.

These principles distinguish MI from advice-giving, psychoeducation, and confrontational counseling. They also explain why MI can feel different from other clinical encounters — and why that difference matters to people receiving it. Qualitative research confirms that patients most valued therapist behaviors aligned with this "MI spirit" — empathy and non-judgment — as foundational to the therapeutic relationship ^[1].

Core Techniques: OARS

The four foundational MI skills are captured in the acronym OARS:

Open Questions invite the client to explore their own thoughts and feelings rather than answering yes or no. Example: "What concerns you most about your drinking?" rather than "Do you drink too much?"

Affirmations recognize the client's strengths, efforts, and values — not empty praise, but genuine acknowledgment of what the person brings to the conversation. Example: "It took real courage to bring this up today."

Reflective Listening is the heart of MI. The clinician reflects back what the client has said — sometimes simply (repeating or paraphrasing) and sometimes with added depth (a complex reflection that names an underlying emotion or meaning the client hasn't quite said aloud). Skilled reflection communicates that the clinician is truly listening, which creates the safety for the client to keep exploring.

Summaries pull together what has been said across the conversation, often highlighting change talk (see below) and creating a sense of momentum. Summaries also give the client a chance to hear their own words reflected back as a coherent whole.

These techniques have been operationalized for specific clinical contexts, including medication initiation conversations ^[2]. OARS is not a script — it is a set of skills that require practice, feedback, and ongoing refinement.

Change Talk vs. Sustain Talk

One of MI's most important theoretical contributions is the distinction between change talk and sustain talk.

Change talk refers to client statements that favor change — expressions of desire ("I want to cut back"), ability ("I think I could do it"), reasons ("My kids need me present"), need ("I have to do something"), and commitment ("I'm going to try"). MI strategically evokes and reinforces these statements.

Sustain talk refers to client statements that favor the status quo — reasons to keep drinking, doubts about ability to change, or arguments against the need to change.

Process research by Magill et al. examined the causal chain between therapist behavior, client language, and outcomes across 12 primary studies. Therapist MI-consistent skills correlated with more client change talk (r = .26, p < .0001), while MI-inconsistent skills were associated with less change talk (r = -.17, p = .001) and more sustain talk (r = .07, p = .009) ^[3]. This confirms that therapist behavior shapes the linguistic environment of the session.

However, the outcome data reveal a critical nuance: client change talk did not predict outcomes (r = .06, p = .41), but sustain talk predicted worse outcomes (r = -.24, p = .001) ^[3]. A follow-up meta-analysis refined this further — sustain talk subtypes around reason, desire, and ability were all associated with more addictive behavior at follow-up ^[4].

The clinical implication is significant: the goal of MI may be less about generating positive change statements and more about reducing resistance and sustain talk. Training programs that focus only on eliciting change talk may be missing the more powerful mechanism.

Rolling with Resistance

When a client argues for the status quo — defending their drinking, minimizing consequences, or pushing back against change — MI does not counter-argue. This is one of the most distinctive features of the approach, and the one most contrary to how many clinicians are trained.

Instead of confronting resistance, MI practitioners use reflection, reframing, and shifting focus. A client who says "I don't think I drink that much" might receive a simple reflection ("You're not sure the amount is really a problem") rather than a correction. This keeps the conversation open rather than triggering defensiveness.

This approach is the opposite of "tough love" confrontation. The evidence supports it: MI-inconsistent behaviors — arguing, warning, confronting — are associated with increased sustain talk ^[3], which in turn predicts worse outcomes. Rolling with resistance is not passivity; it is a deliberate strategy grounded in the understanding that people change when they feel heard, not when they feel cornered.

Trial Evidence

Project MATCH and Motivational Enhancement Therapy

Project MATCH was one of the largest alcohol treatment trials ever conducted, comparing three approaches: Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET, a four-session MI-based intervention), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and Twelve-Step Facilitation (TSF). MET produced outcomes roughly equivalent to CBT and TSF despite using fewer sessions — a finding that established brief MI-based intervention as a credible treatment option for AUD ^[5].

Cochrane Meta-Analyses

The most comprehensive evidence comes from two Cochrane systematic reviews.

The 2023 Schwenker et al. review synthesized 93 RCTs involving 22,776 participants ^[6]. Compared to no intervention, MI showed a small-to-moderate post-intervention effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.07–0.89), which weakened at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12–0.28) and further at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05–0.20) ^[6]. Compared to assessment and feedback, MI showed moderate-certainty evidence of benefit at medium- and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24 at both timepoints) ^[6]. Critically, compared to other active treatments, MI showed no significant differences at any follow-up point ^[6]. This is a clinically important finding: MI's advantage over doing nothing is real; its advantage over other active treatments is not well-established.

The earlier Burke et al. meta-analysis found that Adapted Motivational Interventions (AMIs) produced moderate effects (d = 0.25–0.57) versus no treatment or placebo for alcohol problems, with a 56% reduction in client drinking and a social impact effect size of d = 0.47 ^[7]. Notably, the same analysis found results did not support MI's efficacy for smoking, suggesting the mechanism may be substance-specific ^[7].

The Rubak et al. systematic review found MI outperformed traditional advice-giving in approximately three out of four studies ^[8].

Young Adults: Smaller Effects, Important Caveats

For young adults specifically, the Foxcroft et al. Cochrane review (84 RCTs, N = 22,872) found statistically significant but clinically marginal effects at four-or-more-month follow-up: quantity reduction SMD -0.11, frequency SMD -0.14, peak blood alcohol concentration SMD -0.12, all moderate-quality evidence ^[9]. The authors explicitly concluded these effects are "too small to be of relevance to policy or practice," with no meaningful effects on binge drinking or drink-driving and no relationship between session duration and effect size ^[9]. An earlier iteration of this review reached nearly identical conclusions ^[10]. Importantly, none of the 84 included trials reported harms related to MI ^[9].

Brief MI in Primary Care

For primary care physicians working within 15-minute appointment slots, the dose-response question is critical. The evidence is more encouraging than many assume.

Both Foxcroft Cochrane reviews explicitly tested duration and found no clear relationship between the length of the MI intervention in minutes and effect size ^{[9] [10]}. Rubak et al. corroborate this: 64% of studies using 15-minute MI encounters showed a significant effect ^[8]. The Schwenker review synthesized studies delivering MI in 1–9 sessions ranging from 10 to 148 minutes, without finding a clear multi-session advantage ^[6].

This means that brief MI in primary care is not a compromised version of "real" MI — the evidence does not support a hierarchy in which longer is always better.

However, Rubak et al. also found that more than one encounter improves effectiveness ^[8], creating a genuine tension for single-visit SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment) integration. Research in HIV-positive primary care patients found that all arms including SBIRT-only reduced unhealthy alcohol use, though MI added benefit over SBIRT alone for patients with low motivation ^[11].

A significant gap in the corpus: no studies directly address SBIRT workflow integration within standard 15-minute primary care visits with competing clinical demands. That implementation question remains unanswered by the available evidence.

MI and Comorbid Conditions

Depression and Alcohol Use

For comorbid alcohol use and depression, Riper et al. reported small pooled effects (g = 0.17 for alcohol reduction, g = 0.27 for depressive symptoms) ^[12]. Digital CBT/MI interventions showed higher effect sizes for depression than face-to-face delivery (g = 0.73 vs. g = 0.23) ^[12], a finding relevant to the growing use of digital tools in primary care.

Bipolar Disorder and Severe Mental Illness

When MI was integrated with CBT for comorbid bipolar disorder and alcohol misuse, therapists reported persistent delivery challenges: balancing alcohol-focused work against other psychiatric priorities, managing emotional avoidance, and navigating client shame ^[13]. These real-world delivery obstacles are not captured in efficacy trials and represent a meaningful implementation gap.

Dual Diagnosis

The evidence base for MI in comorbid psychiatric populations remains thin.

MI + Pharmacotherapy

Medications for AUD — including naltrexone, buprenorphine, and acamprosate — are underutilized despite strong evidence for their effectiveness. MI techniques applied at the point of prescribing can increase medication adherence by addressing ambivalence about taking medication, exploring concerns, and supporting autonomous decision-making.

The OARS framework has been operationalized specifically for medication initiation contexts ^[2]. The "ask-tell-ask" structure — asking what the patient already knows, providing information, then asking what they make of it — is an MI-consistent approach to prescribing conversations that respects autonomy while ensuring the patient has what they need to make an informed decision.

The process research from Magill et al. is directly relevant here: when a clinician is discussing naltrexone or acamprosate with a patient, how they speak shapes whether the patient leaves the conversation with more or less sustain talk about medication ^[3]. A clinician who argues for medication against a patient's doubts may inadvertently increase sustain talk and reduce adherence.

An important transparency note: The corpus contains no direct evidence on MI as a prelude to pharmacotherapy initiation specifically for AUD. The clinical model of MI-as-gateway-to-MAT is an inference from the broader MI efficacy literature, not a documented finding from a dedicated trial. This is a significant gap that future research should address.

Fidelity Assessment

The MITI and MIA-STEP

The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) scale is the primary tool for assessing whether MI is being delivered as intended. Trained coders listen to recorded sessions and rate therapist behaviors across dimensions including empathy, MI spirit, open questions, reflections, and MI-inconsistent behaviors. The MIA-STEP (Motivational Interviewing Assessment: Supervisory Tools for Enhancing Proficiency) provides a parallel framework for supervision and training.

These tools exist because what gets labeled "MI" in practice varies enormously. A clinician who attended a one-day workshop and calls their approach "MI-informed" may be delivering something quite different from manualized, fidelity-checked MI. Fidelity measurement is the field's attempt to distinguish between these.

The Sobering Fidelity Finding

The most direct fidelity data in the corpus comes from Kramer Schmidt et al., which coded 423 sessions using MITI 4 in an RCT of adults aged 60 and older. Mean fidelity scores indicated high overall adherence — therapists were delivering MI competently. Yet none of the MITI 4 predictors were associated with alcohol use outcomes at 26-week follow-up ^[14]. Exploratory analyses even suggested possible reverse associations between one fidelity measure and drinking in the combined MET + Community Reinforcement Approach arm ^[14].

This is the only corpus document that directly tests predictive validity of coded fidelity, and its null finding challenges the assumption that "doing MI well" — as measured by MITI — automatically produces better outcomes.

Reconciling the Contradiction

Several interpretations deserve consideration. First, the Kramer Schmidt sample consisted of treatment-seeking older adults already committed to change — a population where MI's ambivalence-resolution function may be less relevant. The authors themselves suggest "MI may be less effective in populations which are already committed to change behavior" ^[14]. Second, the high mean fidelity scores may have created a ceiling effect with insufficient variance to detect outcome differences — a range restriction problem rather than evidence that fidelity is irrelevant.

Third, and most importantly, MITI may not be measuring the right thing. The Magill et al. process research suggests the active mechanism is sustain talk reduction, not the presence of MI-consistent behaviors per se ^[3]. A therapist can score well on MITI while still failing to reduce sustain talk in a given session. This interpretation aligns with the lived experience perspective: what distinguishes effective from ineffective MI may be a relational quality — genuine curiosity, tolerance of silence, authentic presence — that MITI coding does not capture ^[1].

The honest conclusion is that fidelity measurement remains important for training and quality assurance, but the relationship between MITI scores and patient outcomes is more complex than the field has assumed.

Therapist Training and Workforce

MI requires training and ongoing supervision to deliver with competence. One-day workshops produce surface-level familiarity with MI vocabulary but do not reliably produce skilled practitioners. Sustained competence requires ongoing coaching, recorded session review, and feedback against fidelity benchmarks.

The corpus is notably silent on specific training requirements — how many hours, what supervision intensity, what competency thresholds are needed before a clinician should be considered proficient. This is a significant gap for implementation guidance.

What the evidence does suggest is that training must address not only core OARS skills but also the specific obstacles therapists encounter in real-world delivery. When MI is integrated with other approaches for comorbid presentations, therapists report challenges including managing emotional avoidance, navigating shame, and balancing competing clinical priorities ^[13]. These are not problems that a standard MI training addresses.

The workforce implication is clear: implementation research should prioritize decision rules for when to use MI, when to step it down, and how to support clinicians delivering it in complex, comorbid contexts — rather than assuming that higher fidelity scores will automatically translate to better patient outcomes.

Telehealth and Digital MI

Telephone and video-delivered MI have demonstrated effectiveness in multiple settings. Digital CBT/MI interventions showed notably higher effect sizes for depression outcomes than face-to-face delivery in the Riper et al. analysis ^[12], suggesting that digital formats may not simply replicate in-person MI but may offer distinct advantages for some populations.

Automated and chatbot-based MI is under active investigation. The evidence base for fully automated MI delivery remains limited and mixed. Development work has explored digital boosters alongside in-person MI, but outcome moderation data for these formats are sparse in the current corpus.

Special Populations

Adolescents and College Students: MI requires developmental adaptation for younger populations. The Foxcroft reviews focused specifically on young adults and found small, inconsistent effects with no benefit for binge drinking — the highest-stakes outcome in this group ^[9]. Adaptation for adolescents must account for developmental factors including identity formation, peer influence, and the role of autonomy in motivation.

Pregnant Women: Screening tools such as the T-ACE (Tolerance, Annoyed, Cut down, Eye-opener) identify alcohol use in pregnancy, and MI-based brief interventions have been used as follow-up. The corpus does not provide detailed outcome data for this population specifically.

Veterans: Veterans represent a population with high rates of AUD and frequent comorbid PTSD and traumatic brain injury. The corpus does not address veteran-specific MI adaptations in detail — a gap given the clinical importance of this group.

Spanish-Language and Culturally Adapted MI: Cultural adaptation of MI is an active area of development. The Rubak et al. review found MI outperformed traditional advice-giving across diverse populations ^[8], but the corpus does not provide detailed data on whether cultural adaptation adds meaningful benefit beyond standard MI delivery.

Older Adults: The Kramer Schmidt et al. study provides the most detailed data on MI in adults aged 60 and older. The null fidelity finding in this population, combined with the authors' inference about already-motivated patients, suggests that MI's role in older treatment-seeking adults may differ from its role in younger, more ambivalent populations ^[14].

When MI Does NOT Work

Knowing when MI is unlikely to help is as clinically important as knowing when it will. The corpus identifies several conditions of limited or null effect:

Already-motivated patients: MI is designed to resolve ambivalence. When a patient has already decided to change and is seeking treatment, MI's core function may be redundant — or worse, may feel patronizing. Kramer Schmidt et al. explicitly suggest this limitation ^[14]. Qualitative data from Ingesson Hammarberg et al. found that some MET patients experienced therapy as "overly positive, with no room to talk about failure" — a signal that MI delivered without sensitivity to where a patient actually sits can feel invalidating ^[1].

Binge drinking and drink-driving: Both Foxcroft reviews found no effects on binge drinking (SMD -0.04 to -0.05) or drink-driving at four-plus months ^{[9] [10]}. These are arguably the highest-stakes outcomes in young adult alcohol use, and MI appears largely inert for them.

Group-delivered MI: Lundahl and Burke found that relying solely on group-delivered MI appears less effective than one-on-one MI ^[5]. This has direct implications for resource allocation in clinical settings.

Smoking: Burke et al.'s meta-analysis found results did not support MI's efficacy for smoking ^[7], suggesting the mechanism may be substance-specific and that findings from AUD trials should not be assumed to generalize.

No documents in the corpus reported harms from MI. Foxcroft et al. explicitly state that none of the 84 included trials reported harms related to MI ^[9]. The concern is not harm but opportunity cost: deploying MI where it is unlikely to help delays or displaces interventions that might.

Evidence Gaps

Honest acknowledgment of what the evidence does not yet tell us is essential for responsible implementation:

Mechanism research: The corpus provides suggestive but incomplete evidence about which MI elements drive change. The Magill et al. finding that sustain talk reduction — not change talk elicitation — may be the active mechanism ^{[3] [4]} is important but based on a limited number of primary studies. More research is needed to confirm this causal model and translate it into training priorities.

Long-term outcomes: Effect sizes weaken substantially over time across all reviews ^[6]. The corpus is sparse on recovery trajectories beyond 12 months. Whether MI produces durable change or primarily accelerates a process that would have occurred anyway remains an open question.

Fidelity in real-world community settings: The one corpus document that directly tested fidelity-outcome relationships found no association ^[14]. More research across diverse populations and settings is needed before conclusions about MITI's clinical relevance can be drawn.

MI as a lead-in to pharmacotherapy: No corpus documents directly test MI as a prelude to AUD medication initiation. This clinical model is an inference, not a documented finding.

Training requirements: The corpus contains almost no data on how many hours of training, what supervision intensity, or what competency thresholds are needed for reliable MI delivery. This is a critical gap for workforce development.

Relational authenticity: Qualitative data from patients consistently point to the importance of feeling genuinely heard rather than processed ^[1]. The corpus does not measure this quality directly, and MITI coding does not capture it. Whether relational authenticity moderates the modest effect sizes reported across reviews remains an open empirical question.

Clinical Bottom Line

MI is a specific, structured clinical technique with a real — if modest — evidence base for AUD. Its effects are most clearly demonstrated against no treatment or assessment-only controls; its advantage over other active treatments is not well-established ^[6]. Brief delivery in primary care is supported by the evidence, with no consistent dose-response relationship favoring longer or more frequent sessions ^{[9] [8]}. Individual delivery outperforms group delivery ^[5].

The evidence suggests MI is most valuable for people who are ambivalent about change — not yet committed, but not entirely resistant either. For people already motivated and seeking treatment, MI's core function may add little. For binge drinking and drink-driving outcomes in young adults, MI has not demonstrated meaningful effects.

The active mechanism appears to involve reducing sustain talk more than generating change talk ^[3]. Training programs and fidelity monitoring should reflect this priority. MITI coding remains a useful training and quality assurance tool, but its relationship to patient outcomes is more complex than the field has assumed ^[14].

For people with AUD, MI is best understood as one component of a comprehensive approach — a way of having conversations that respect autonomy, reduce defensiveness, and create the conditions for change — rather than a standalone cure. Used well, with appropriate patients, in individual format, by trained clinicians who can tolerate ambivalence and genuinely listen, it is a meaningful clinical tool. Used as a checkbox or a script, it is something else entirely.

This article synthesizes evidence from a multi-expert panel discussion grounded in verified research documents. All citations reflect papers cited in the expert discourse. Gaps in the evidence base are noted explicitly where they exist.

Verified References

• ^[13] Berry, Katherine, Barrowclough, Christine, Fitsimmons, Mike et al. (2020). "Overcoming challenges in delivering integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy for bipolar disorder with co-morbid alcohol use: therapist perspectives.". Behav Cogn Psychother. DOI: 10.1017/s1352465820000272 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[7] Burke, Brian L, Arkowitz, Hal, Menchola, Marisa (2003). "The efficacy of motivational interviewing: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.". J Consult Clin Psychol. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006x.71.5.843 [abstract-verified: partial]
• ^[10] Foxcroft, David R, Coombes, Lindsey, Wood, Sarah et al. (2014). "Motivational interviewing for alcohol misuse in young adults.". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007025.pub2 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[9] Foxcroft, David R, Coombes, Lindsey, Wood, Sarah et al. (2016). "Motivational interviewing for the prevention of alcohol misuse in young adults.". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007025.pub4 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[1] Ingesson Hammarberg, Stina, Sundbye, Jennie, Tingvall, Rebecca et al. (2023). "A qualitative interview study of patient experiences of receiving motivational enhancement therapy in a Swedish addiction specialist treatment setting.". Addict Sci Clin Pract. DOI: 10.1186/s13722-023-00398-7 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[2] Kisely, Steve, Ligate, Loys, Roy, Marc-André et al. (2012). "Applying Motivational Interviewing to the initiation of long-acting injectable atypical antipsychotics.". Australas Psychiatry. DOI: 10.1177/1039856212437257 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[14] Kramer Schmidt, Lotte, Moyers, Theresa B, Nielsen, Anette Søgaard et al. (2019). "Is fidelity to motivational interviewing associated with alcohol outcomes in treatment-seeking 60+ year-old citizens?". J Subst Abuse Treat. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2019.03.004 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[5] Lundahl, Brad, Burke, Brian L (2009). "The effectiveness and applicability of motivational interviewing: a practice-friendly review of four meta-analyses.". J Clin Psychol. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20638 [abstract-verified: partial]
• ^[3] Magill, Molly, Gaume, Jacques, Apodaca, Timothy R et al. (2014). "The technical hypothesis of motivational interviewing: a meta-analysis of MI's key causal model.". J Consult Clin Psychol. DOI: 10.1037/a0036833 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[4] Magill, Molly, Bernstein, Michael H, Hoadley, Ariel et al. (2019). "Do what you say and say what you are going to do: A preliminary meta-analysis of client change and sustain talk subtypes in motivational interviewing.". Psychother Res. DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2018.1490973 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[12] Heleen Riper, Gerhard Andersson, Sarah B Hunter et al. (2014). "Treatment of comorbid alcohol use disorders and depression with cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing: a meta-analysis.". Addiction (Abingdon, England). DOI: 10.1111/add.12441 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[8] Sune Rubak, Annelli Sandbaek, Torsten Lauritzen et al. (2005). "Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.". The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners. [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[11] Satre, Derek D, Leibowitz, Amy S, Leyden, Wendy et al. (2019). "Interventions to Reduce Unhealthy Alcohol Use among Primary Care Patients with HIV: the Health and Motivation Randomized Clinical Trial.". J Gen Intern Med. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05065-9 [abstract-verified: yes]
• ^[6] Schwenker, Rosemarie, Dietrich, Carla Emilia, Hirpa, Selamawit et al. (2023). "Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction.". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008063.pub3 [abstract-verified: yes]

Replacement Resolution Audit

Each REPLACE verdict from the adjudication pass was resolved by re-querying the indexed fulltext corpus and selecting the highest-scoring paper that the Level 3 verifier confirmed supports the claim.

• ^[15] → ^[3] (verifier: partial; score 0.68). Title: Does readiness to change predict in-session motivational language? Correspondence between two conceptualizations of clie
• ^[15] → ^[4] (verifier: partial; score 0.72). Title: Do what you say and say what you are going to do: A preliminary meta-analysis of client change and sustain talk subtypes
• ^[16] → NO REPLACEMENT FOUND (considered 4 candidates; none verified)
• ^[16] → ^[1] (verifier: partial; score 0.60). Title: _Effectiveness and feasibility of a motivational interviewing intake (MII) intervention for increasing client engagement _
• ^[15] → NO REPLACEMENT FOUND (considered 4 candidates; none verified)
• ^[6] → NO REPLACEMENT FOUND (considered 4 candidates; none verified)
• ^[17] → NO REPLACEMENT FOUND (considered 4 candidates; none verified)
• ^[17] → ^[7] (verifier: partial; score 0.73). Title: Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on adult behaviour change in health and social care settings: A systematic re
• ^[18] → ^[8] (verifier: partial; score 0.72). Title: Disentangling the association between PTSD symptom heterogeneity and alcohol use disorder: Results from the 2019-2020 Na
• ^[18] → ^[9] (verifier: partial; score 0.74). Title: Hazardous drinking and alcohol use disorders.
• ^[19] → ^[9] (verifier: partial; score 0.74). Title: Hazardous drinking and alcohol use disorders.
• ^[20] → ^[14] (verifier: partial; score 0.58). Title: A randomized controlled trial of motivational interviewing tailored for heavy drinking latinxs.
• ^[20] → ^[7] (verifier: partial; score 0.70). Title: Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on adult behaviour change in health and social care settings: A systematic re