Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Adolesc Health. 2016 May 5;59(1):96–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.026

Table 2.

Effect of Intervention on MI. Results of Multilevel LMM for MIa

MI Construct Baseline Phase N=176 Intervention Phase N=202 Summary Report Phase N=149
Estimated Mean, 95%CI Interven Estimated Mean Control Estimated Mean Mean Difference Between Arms (95% CI; p-value) Interven Estimated Mean Control Estimated Mean Mean Difference Between Arms (95% CI; p-value)
Global Scores
 MI Spirit 2.1 [1.9,2.3] 2.2 1.8 0.4 [0.1,0.7]; 0.02 2.6 1.9 0.7[0.4,1.1];0.0002
 MIIC % 62 [56,69] 56 62 −6[−18,1];0.30 52 64 −12[−25,1];0.06
 Empathy 2.5[2.3,2.6] 2.4 1.9 0.5[0.1,0.8];0.02 2.7 2.0 0.7[0.3,1.1];0.0006
Counts
 Open Questions 1.6[1.2,2.0] 3.1 1.6 1.5[0.7,2.3];0.0003 1.9 0.9 1.0[0.1,1.9];0.02
 MI consistent 1.6[1.0,2.1] 2.6 2.4 0.3[−0.8,1.3];0.63 4.0 2.8 1.2[0.0,2.3];0.04
 MI inconsistent 3.1[2.4,3.7] 3.3 3.5 −0.2,[−1.5,1.0];0.73 4.5 4.9 −0.4[−1.8,1.0];0.58
a

MIIC% is missing for 52 subjects for encounters where no MI consistent or inconsistent communications occurred (22 Baseline; 24 Intervention Phase; 6 Summary Report Phase).