Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:124-132. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.03.017. Epub 2019 May 15.

Beneficial effects of motivational interviewing case management: A latent class analysis of recovery capital among sober living residents with criminal justice involvement.

Author information

1
Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, 6001 Shellmound Street, Suite 450, Emeryville, CA 94608, USA. Electronic address: jwitbrodt@arg.org.
2
Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, 6001 Shellmound Street, Suite 450, Emeryville, CA 94608, USA; Behavioral Health and Recovery Studies, Public Health Institute, 936 Dewing Avenue, Suite C, Lafayette, CA 94549, USA.
3
Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, 6001 Shellmound Street, Suite 450, Emeryville, CA 94608, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

This secondary analysis uses data from a recent clinical trial conducted with probationers and parolees with substance use disorders (N = 330) residing in Sober Living Houses (SLHs). The treatment condition received Motivational Interviewing Case Management (MICM), while controls received usual care SLH residency. Both conditions improved on multiple domains, though residents randomized to MICM improved significantly more than usual care controls on criminal justice outcomes. Because MICM is designed to help ex-offenders attain more recovery capital (RC) in multiple domains, we hypothesized MICM participants that already possessed higher RC would show significantly greater improvement at follow-up than usual SLH residents with higher RC. Moreover, MICM and usual SLH residents with low RC would show no differences at 1-year follow-up.

METHODS:

A latent class analysis (LCA) grouped participants into two patterns of RC: those with low RC and those with high RC. These classes were interacted with study condition to predict change on six Addiction Severity Indices (ASI) at follow-up.

RESULTS:

MICM was more effective for the higher RC class, with greater improvement in drug, legal, and psychiatric outcomes for those who attended at least three MICM sessions. MICM was no more beneficial than usual care for those in a low RC class.

CONCLUSIONS:

SLH operators should consider implementation of MICM for residents with more RC resources. Those with fewer recovery resources, such as a history of psychiatric problems or physical/sexual abuse, would benefit from a more intensive intervention to assist them with improving the amount and quality of their RC.

KEYWORDS:

Case management; Interventions; Motivational interviewing; Parolees; Probationers; Recovery capital; Sober living houses

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center