IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0241193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motivational interviewing to support modifiable risk factor change in individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Justin Lee Mifsud
  • Joseph Galea
  • Joanne Garside
  • John Stephenson
  • Felicity Astin

Abstract

Background: Programmes using motivational interviewing show potential in facilitating lifestyle change, however this has not been well established and explored in individuals at risk of, yet without symptomatic pre-existent cardiovascular disease. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of motivational interviewing in supporting modifiable risk factor change in individuals at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis with results were reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Health-related databases were searched for randomised controlled trials from 1980 to March 2020. Criteria for inclusion included; preventive programmes, motivational interviewing principles, modification of cardiovascular risk factors in adults of both genders, different ethnicities and employment status, and having at least 1 or more modifiable cardiovascular risk factor/s. Two reviewers independently extracted data and conducted a quality appraisal of eligible studies using an adapted Cochrane framework. The Cochrane framework supports to systematically identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets the pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific question. Findings: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. While completeness of intervention reporting was found to be adequate, the application of motivational interviewing was found to be insufficiently reported across all studies (mean overall reporting rate; 68%, 26% respectively). No statistical difference between groups in smoking status and physical activity was reported. A random effects analysis from 4 studies was conducted, this determined a synthesized estimate for standardised mean difference in weight of -2.00kg (95% CI -3.31 to -0.69 kg; p = 0.003), with high statistical heterogeneity. Pooled results from 4 studies determined a mean difference in LDL-c of -0.14mmol/l (5.414mg/dl), which was non-significant. The characteristics of interventions more likely to be effective were identified as: use of a blended approach delivered by a nurse expert in motivational interviewing from an outpatient-clinic. The application of affirmation, compassion and evocation, use of open questions, summarising, listening, supporting and raising ambivalence, combining education and barrier change identification with goal setting are also important intervention characteristics. Conclusions: While motivational interviewing may support individuals to modify their cardiovascular risk through lifestyle change, the effectiveness of this approach remains uncertain. The strengths and limitations of motivational interviewing need to be further explored through robust studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Justin Lee Mifsud & Joseph Galea & Joanne Garside & John Stephenson & Felicity Astin, 2020. "Motivational interviewing to support modifiable risk factor change in individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-21, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241193
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241193
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241193&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0241193?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David R Thompson & Sek Y Chair & Sally W Chan & Felicity Astin & Patricia M Davidson & Chantal F Ski, 2011. "Motivational interviewing: a useful approach to improving cardiovascular health?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(9‐10), pages 1236-1244, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alicia E. Klaassen & Anita I. Kapanen & Peter J. Zed & Annalijn I. Conklin, 2023. "Setting Goals to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk: A Retrospective Chart Review of a Pharmacist-Led Initiative in the Workplace," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Yi-Pang Lo & Shang-Lin Chiang & Chia-Huei Lin & Hung-Chang Liu & Li-Chi Chiang, 2020. "Effects of Individualized Aerobic Exercise Training on Physical Activity and Health-Related Physical Fitness among Middle-Aged and Older Adults with Multimorbidity: A Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-16, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barbara Riegel & Ruth Masterson Creber & Julia Hill & Jesse Chittams & Linda Hoke, 2016. "Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing in Decreasing Hospital Readmission in Adults With Heart Failure and Multimorbidity," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 25(4), pages 362-377, August.
    2. Helen Frost & Pauline Campbell & Margaret Maxwell & Ronan E O’Carroll & Stephan U Dombrowski & Brian Williams & Helen Cheyne & Emma Coles & Alex Pollock, 2018. "Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on adult behaviour change in health and social care settings: A systematic review of reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-39, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.