Date post: | 26-Jun-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | magnus-johansson |
View: | 149 times |
Download: | 0 times |
CTN 004 (3 session MET vs. TAU)
Baseline Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 8 Week 160
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 MI/METAssessment
Estim
ated
Tim
e in
Min
utes
CTN 005 (MI vs. Usual Intake)
Baseline Week 4 Week 120
20
40
60
80
100
120
140 MI/METAssessment
Estim
ated
Tim
e in
Min
utes
CTN 013 (3 session MET vs. TAU, Pregnant Women)
Baseline Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 8 Week 160
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160 MI/METAssessment
Estim
ated
Tim
e in
Min
utes
Speaking of CTN 013…
Source: Ondersma, et al., submitted
Why might this happen?
• Assessment is pretty long, relative to brief interventions.
• Assessment mirrors a lot of the factors we are targeting in MI.
• Assessment may have an advantage over human interactions (e.g., interpersonal reactance).
• Assessment has long been used alongside MI (e.g., MET, “Check-Up”).
• If this is true, there are frustrating/wonderful implications!