AEP motivational interviewing readings

bethdrysdale94's version from 2017-05-31 13:56

Section 1

Question Answer
Gourian 2013: overviewmotivational interviewing in addition to a standard weight loss programme on PA in obese adolescents. 6 months. 54 adolescents, standard weight loss programme (SWLP) and SWLP+MI
Gourian 2013: measuresperceived autonomy support, competence, motivational regulations, PA and BMI assesed at baseline, 3 and 6 months.
Gourian 2013: resultsMI group had a greater BMI decrease and greater PA practice increase over time. Greater autonomy support, greater increase in integrated and identified regulations, stronger decrease in amotivation. CONTROL: no change in BMI, no change in PA. increase in competence, same as MI. BMI also decreased, same as MI
Gourian 2013: discussionBMI changes may be explained by small sample size. more interventions warranted to find optimal dose, timing and elements of MI. absence of effect of MI on perceived competence - "ceiling effect". MI addresses resistance and ambivalence about change, SWLP provides the skills necessary to do so - work in different ways. MI better at decreasing amotivation.
Gourian 2013: limitationssmall sample size. intervention was not time matched to control group but in ADDITION to control. MI treatment or just having contact with MI professionals caused the change? MI lost cost effective treatment overall.

Section 2

Question Answer
O'halloran 2014: overviewsystematic review and meta analysis of RCTs if MI increases PA, CRF or functional exercise capacity in people with chronic disease
O'halloran 2014: studies11 publications were included, adults, chronic health condition, using MI intervention.
O'halloran 2014: resultsMI had small increasing effect on PA in those with chronic disease compared to control groups. treatment fidelity produced a larger effect. no conclusive evidence for CRF or FEC.
O'halloran 2014: conclusionMI in addition to usual care may lead to modest improvements in PA for those with chronic disease

Section 3

Question Answer
Martins and McNeill 2009: MI vs no treatmentbetter than no treatment in health behaviour, better than traditional advice giving
Martins and McNeill 2009: limitations of MI studiesstudies focus on adaptations of MI and not just pure MI. duration of MI sessions vary greatly. high attrition rates are a common threat to internal validity of studies
Martins and McNeill 2009: training and practice issuestraining procedures rarely identified in papers. length/procedure/skills may vary massively. tendency to return to baseline with no further practice sessions or follow up. future studies should continuously coach MI.
Martins and McNeill 2009: treatment issuesprevious reviews suggest that length and number of MI sessions are associated with behaviour change. but there is significant heterogeinity. many studies fail to report length and MI session content.
Martins and McNeill 2009: methodological issuessmall samples. mixed intervention groups, lack of treatment control groups, MI being combined with other interventions (whilst clinically sensible) makes it impossible to determine the unique contributions of MI
Martins and McNeill 2009: conclusionsMI is cost effective. utilised by a variety of individuals in a variety of health settings. can be incorporated into time-sensitive clinical practice. acceptibility of MI is very high. MORE reasearch is needed, - what are the active ingredients? what processes mediate outcome? how do therapist characterisitcs affect outcome? MI amongst racial and athnic minorities?