4.2 Review

Motivational interviewing by general practitioners for Type 2 diabetes patients: a systematic review

Journal

FAMILY PRACTICE
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 376-383

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx045

Keywords

Family physician; general practice; general practitioner; motivational interviewing; type 2 diabetes

Funding

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand [SY58201]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Motivational interviewing (MI) is an effective tool to help clinicians with facilitating behavioural changes in many diseases and conditions. However, different forms of MI are required in different health care settings and for different clinicians. Although general practitioners (GPs) play a major role in Type 2 diabetes management, the effects of MI delivered by GPs intended to change the behaviours of their Type 2 diabetes patients and GP outcomes, defined as GP knowledge, satisfaction and practice behaviours, have not been systematically reviewed. Methods. An electronic search was conducted through Cochrane Library, Scopus, ProQuest, Wiley Online Library, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete and Google Scholar from the earliest date of each database to 2017. Reference lists from each article obtained were reviewed. Measured changes in GP satisfaction, knowledge, and practice behaviours, and patient outcomes were recorded. Results. Eight out of 1882 studies met the criteria for inclusion. Six studies examined the effects of MI on Type 2 diabetes patient outcomes, only one of which examined its effects on GP outcomes. Two-thirds of the studies (4/6) found a significant improvement in at least one of the following patient outcomes: total cholesterol, low-density lipoproteins, fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, body mass index, blood pressure, waist circumference and physical activity. The effects of MI on GP outcomes yielded mixed results. Conclusions. Few studies have examined evidence for the effectiveness of MI delivered by GPs to Type 2 diabetes patients. Evidence to support the effectiveness of MI on GP and patient outcomes is weak. Further quality studies are needed to examine the effects of MI on GP and patient outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available