Cited by 71Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

The effect of motivational interviewing on glycaemic control and perceived competence of diabetes self-management in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus after attending a group education programme: a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Rosenbek Minet, L. K., Wagner, L., Lønvig, E. M., Hjelmborg, J., Henriksen, J. E.·2011·Diabetologia

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to measure the efficacy of motivational interviewing (MI) compared with usual care on changes in glycaemic control and competence of diabetes self-management in patients with diabetes mellitus.Methods Patients were eligible if they had type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, were over 18 years of age and had participated in a 4 day group education programme offered at a diabetes clinic at a university hospital in Denmark. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, severe debilitating disease and cognitive deficit. Out of 469 patients who attended the group education programme, 349 patients were randomised to either a usual care control group or an intervention group, which received up to five individual counselling sessions in 1 year based on MI, in addition to usual care. A randomised parallel design was used and open-label allocation was done by random permuted blocks, with allocation concealment by sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes. The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)). Analysis regarding measurements of glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and competence of self-management (using the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale [PAID] and Perceived Competence for Diabetes Scale [PCDS]) was based on 298 participants followed for a 24 month period. Data were collected at the Department of Endocrinology at Odense University Hospital. Our hypotheses were that MI could: (1) reduce HbA(1c) levels; (2) increase self-efficacy; and (3) increase diabetes self-care, compared with usual care.Results Out of the 176 included in the control group and 173 in the intervention group, 153 and 145 were analysed in the groups, respectively. When using the baseline value as covariate there were no significant differences in change score between the two study groups with regard to mean level of HbA(1c) (0.131, p = 0.221), PAID scores (-1.793, p = 0.191) or PCDS scores (0.017, p = 0.903) at the 24 month follow-up, using a mixed effects regression model. The patients in the intervention group showed significantly higher levels of perceived competence in dealing with diabetes compared with the control group (mean change score = -0.387, p = 0.002) following 1 year of intervention.Conclusion/interpretation We were unable to demonstrate any benefit, over or above usual care, of MI in patients with diabetes who have just completed a diabetes education programme, and who have well-regulated diabetes.Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT00555854.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-011-2120-x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Zoffmann V (2004) Guided self-determination. A life skills approach developed in difficult type 1 diabetes. PhD thesis. Aarhus: Faculty of Health Sciences University of Aarhus

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosenbek Minet, L. K., Wagner, L., Lønvig, E. M., Hjelmborg, J., & Henriksen, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Odense University Hospital (DK)
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2011-04-01
Volume
54
Issue
7
Pages
1620-1629
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2153287934
Cited by
71
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Odense Universitetshospital
  • Syddansk Universitet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
motivational interviewing, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, diabetes self-management, perceived competence, self-efficacy, individual counseling, Problem Areas in Diabetes scale, diabetes self-care, usual care comparison, diabetes clinic patients
MeSH terms
Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Patient Education as Topic, Self Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review