ArticleBMC primary care2025
Investigating assumptions in motivational interviewing among general practitioners: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnhealthy behaviours contributing to cardiovascular issues, diabetes, strokes, and cancer, pose significant health risks. General practitioners (GPs) are pivotal in guiding behaviour change, with Motivational Interviewing (MI) showing promise. MI, developed by William Miller and Stephen Rollnick, aims to enhance motivation for change. Despite its efficacy in areas like smoking cessation and weight loss, its uptake among French GPs remains uncertain.
methodsThis qualitative study was to explore GPs' understanding of MI, its perceived benefits and the obstacles to its implementation in western Brittany (Finistère). Semi-structured interviews, conducted by two female trainees, explored MI knowledge, benefits, and barriers with a thematic analysis.
resultsBetween November 2020 and May 2021, 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs. Participants had a limited understanding of MI, often confusing it with persuasion. MI was seen as a patient-centered tool fostering behavioural change, with reported benefits in cancer screening, chronic disease management, and vaccination. However, barriers such as time constraints, limited training availability, and systemic issues hinder its adoption. Participants emphasized MI's utility for challenging cases but noted it was unnecessary for engaged patients. MI could also enhance doctor-patient relationships and physician satisfaction. Overcoming barriers requires addressing logistical issues, integrating MI into training, and promoting its long-term efficiency to improve healthcare outcomes.
conclusionThis study highlighted GPs' limited knowledge of MI but recognized its value in promoting patient-centered care and behaviour change. GPs identified its potential in areas like cancer screening, chronic disease management, and vaccine hesitancy while noting barriers such as time constraints and insufficient training. Addressing these challenges through better integration into training and practice could enhance patient outcomes and provider satisfaction. Focused efforts are needed to translate MI's potential into routine clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.