This implies that it is critical to move beyond merely considering a patient's level or intensity of motivation but also consider the quality of their motivation. Īccording to SDT, although patients and clients might put some initial effort in change, lasting results are more likely to fail if it is not undergirded by the 'right' motives. Moreover, both SDT and MI appear to have at its center the concept of motivation, endorsing the development of "internal" motives and the need for patients to take responsibility for change, to the detriment of externally imposed goals, pressures, or a preponderance of reasons for change which are nor personally meaningful. Both models are explicitly person-centered and process-oriented, both emphasize that optimal behavior change must involve deep personal commitment and engagement, and both stress that a positive emotional "climate", defined by genuine empathy and unconditional regard towards patients or clients is a necessary condition for the success of behavior change interventions, especially their long-term effects. The links between SDT, a well-established theory of human motivation and behavior, and MI, a popular clinical method for evoking behavior change are multiple and have been explored before, leading many to think that a formal "marriage" - i.e., accepting SDT as "the theory of MI" and MI as the "intervention method of SDT" - would be just a matter of time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |