Applying Motivational Interviewing Principles in a Modified Interpersonal Group for Comorbid Addiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of motivational interviewing (MI) principles in modified interpersonal group therapy (MIGT) addresses two gaps in the literature. First, it explicitly extends MIGT to non-abstinent, addicted patients who are in the precontemplative and contemplative stages of change in contrast to most MIGT models where abstinence is usually required. Second, it provides a novel, process-oriented group intervention for MI, in contrast to current applications of group-based MI which are more structured in their format. The main modification in technique was to prioritize the horizontal exploration of substance use disclosures with a focus on the here-and-now experience of disclosure and the interpersonal impact on the group, in order to: (1) encourage members to openly discuss their ambivalence and shifting motivational states, (2) harness the evocative impact of substance use disclosures between members to elicit change talk (self-motivational statements), and (3) selectively reinforce change talk when it emerges from these exchanges. The authors illustrate these concepts with a case report of an open-ended MIGT group with comorbid mental illness and addiction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".