School of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Sighthill Court, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Nursing, Midwifery, Allied Health Professional Research Unit (NMAHP-RU), Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 18;13(10):e0204890. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204890. eCollection 2018.
The challenge of addressing unhealthy lifestyle choice is of global concern. Motivational Interviewing has been widely implemented to help people change their behaviour, but it is unclear for whom it is most beneficial. This overview aims to appraise and synthesise the review evidence for the effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on health behaviour of adults in health and social care settings.
A systematic review of reviews. Methods were pre-specified and documented in a protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42016049278). We systematically searched 7 electronic databases: CDSR; DARE; PROSPERO; MEDLINE; CINAHL; AMED and PsycINFO from 2000 to May 2018. Two reviewers applied pre-defined selection criteria, extracted data using TIDIER guidelines and assessed methodological quality using the ROBIS tool. We used GRADE criteria to rate the strength of the evidence for reviews including meta-analyses.
Searches identified 5222 records. One hundred and four reviews, including 39 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Most meta-analysis evidence was graded as low or very low (128/155). Moderate quality evidence for mainly short term (<6 months) statistically significant small beneficial effects of Motivational Interviewing were found in 11 of 155 (7%) of meta-analysis comparisons. These outcomes include reducing binge drinking, frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, substance abuse in people with dependency or addiction, and increasing physical activity participation.
We have created a comprehensive map of reviews relating to Motivational Interviewing to signpost stakeholders to the best available evidence. More high quality research is needed to be confident about the effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing. We identified a large volume of low quality evidence and many areas of overlapping research. To avoid research waste, it is vital for researchers to be aware of existing research, and the implications arising from that research. In the case of Motivational Interviewing issues relating to monitoring and reporting fidelity of interventions need to be addressed.
解决不健康生活方式选择的挑战是全球性关注的问题。动机性访谈已被广泛应用于帮助人们改变行为，但对于谁最受益尚不清楚。本综述旨在评估和综合动机性访谈对健康和社会保健环境中成年人健康行为的综述证据。
系统综述的综述。方法在方案（PROSPERO-CRD42016049278）中预先规定并记录。我们系统地检索了 7 个电子数据库：CDSR；DARE；PROSPERO；MEDLINE；CINAHL；AMED 和 PsycINFO，检索时间从 2000 年到 2018 年 5 月。两名审查员应用预先确定的选择标准，使用 TIDIER 指南提取数据，并使用 ROBIS 工具评估方法学质量。我们使用 GRADE 标准对包括荟萃分析的综述进行证据强度评级。
搜索确定了 5222 条记录。104 篇综述，包括 39 篇荟萃分析符合纳入标准。大多数荟萃分析证据的等级为低或极低（128/155）。在 155 项荟萃分析比较中的 11 项中，发现动机性访谈具有中等质量证据，主要为短期（<6 个月）的统计学显著的小有益效果。这些结果包括减少狂欢饮酒、饮酒频率和数量、依赖或成瘾人群中的药物滥用，以及增加体育活动参与度。
我们创建了一个关于动机性访谈的综述综合地图，为利益相关者指明了最佳现有证据的方向。需要更多高质量的研究才能对动机性访谈的有效性有信心。我们发现了大量低质量的证据和许多重叠研究的领域。为了避免研究浪费，研究人员必须意识到现有研究及其研究结果至关重要。在动机性访谈的情况下，与监测和报告干预措施的保真度有关的问题需要解决。
