Motivational interviewing with male couples to reduce substance use and HIV risk: Manifestations of partner discord and strategies for facilitating dyadic functioning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of motivational interviewing (MI) to reduce substance use is well established; however, its use with couples has met with mixed results. The development of such interventions is particularly relevant for male couples, as rates of substance use in this population are comparatively high and use is associated with aspects of sexual relationship functioning. One challenge noted in conducting MI with couples is how to respond to situations in which partners disagree with one another or argue against change. Guided by the couples interdependence theory, we conceptualized conflicts within session as failures in the accommodation process. We used qualitative analysis to examine manifestations of conflict in session and to identify effective provider response strategies. The sample included 14 cis-male couples with at least 1 partner was aged 18-29 years, reported substance use, and was HIV negative. All couples completed 3 MI sessions lasting 60-75 min each. Manifestations of conflict included conflation of thoughts/feelings, vague or indirect communication, and inaccurate assumptions. Effective provider responses included correcting assumptions, shifting focus, relationship repair, "common ground" reflections, and relationship affirmations. Observed conflicts aligned with conceptualizations of destructive resolutions to the accommodation process (i.e., exit and neglect). Effective provider responses to conflict facilitated dyadic functioning and catalyzed constructive accommodation. These results provide an initial compendium of provider skills and strategies that may be particularly relevant in work with sexual minority male couples, for whom achieving accommodation around drug use and sexual health goals is often viewed as a key mechanism of intervention. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".