Evidence mapPaperPMID 33175849Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

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

Justin Lee Mifsud, Joseph Galea, Joanne Garside, John Stephenson, Felicity Astin

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Justin Lee MifsudFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta, Msida, Malta, Europe.ORCID 0000-0001-5380-9418
Joseph GaleaFaculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Msida, Malta, Europe.
Joanne GarsideDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom.
John StephensonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom.
Felicity AstinDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom.
University of Huddersfield · GBUniversity of Malta · MT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProgrammes 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.

methodsSystematic 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.

findingsA 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.

conclusionsWhile 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.

Indexed as

Motivational InterviewingCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterolExerciseHealthy LifestyleHumansLipoproteins, LDLRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeTriglyceridesCholesterolLipoproteins, LDLTriglycerides

Identifiers

PMID33175849
PMCPMC7657493
OpenAlexW3105798612

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.