Cited by 34Epilepsy research and treatmentPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Effect of motivational interviewing on quality of life in patients with epilepsy

Open access
Hosseini, Nazafarin, Mokhtari, Somaye, Momeni, Ebrahim, Vossoughi, Mehrdad, Barekatian, Majid·2016·Epilepsy & Behavior

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the effect of motivational interviewing on quality of life was evaluated in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Fifty-six patients with epilepsy in a clinical trial were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Motivational interviewing during 5 sessions was applied for the intervention group, and the control group received health-care services. Quality-of-life questionnaire in epilepsy (QOLIE-89) was applied as pre- and posttest for both groups. Before and two months after intervention, both groups were assessed. Data were analyzed by independent t-test, Chi-square test, and paired t-test. RESULTS: The data analysis showed that mean score of the QOLIE-89 was 38.94±8.55 and 70.90±7.99 in the intervention group before and after the intervention, respectfully, and 44.59±12.27 and 36.52±7.16 in the control group sequentially. The intervention group showed a significant score increase in their quality of life (p<0.001), whereas the control group had a score decrease (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Motivational interviewing approach could be used as an effective intervention method for improving patients' quality of life.

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 · 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.10.012

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Of the 12 studies being considered for meta-analysis, 3 studies (25%) were eventually excluded due to the lack of raw QOLIE-89 data (n = 2) or QOLIE-31-P data (n = 1), which prevented the conversion of the results into the cross-study summary QOLIE-31 scores used for the meta-analysis.

    “Of the 12 studies being considered for meta-analysis, 3 studies (25%) were eventually excluded due to the lack of raw QOLIE-89 data (n = 2) 37,41 or QOLIE-31-P data (n = 1), 47 which prevented the conversion of the results into the cross-study summary QOLIE-31 scores used for the meta-analysis.*”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [37]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • QOLIE-31/31-P/-89 was used in 17 studies (71%), of which 12 (70%) were considered for meta-analyses due to satisfactory methodological homogeneity.

    “It was used in 17 studies (71%), of which 12 (70%) were considered for meta-analyses due to satisfactory methodological homogeneity. 26,27,29,30,33,36,37,41,46,47,49,50”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Data collection section identifies this paper as a study that used QOLIE-89. The paper does not report the citing document’s aggregate counts of 17 studies or 12 studies considered for meta-analysis, or establish methodological homogeneity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The potential impact of the 3 studies (25%) that did not provide data that would have allowed the study to be included in data synthesis is probably small, especially because 2 (67%) studies also reported significantly higher QoL in the treatment group when comparing postintervention outcomes of treatment and control groups.

    “The potential impact of the 3 studies (25%) 37,41,47 that did not provide data that would have allowed the study to be included in data synthesis is probably small, especially because 2 (67%) studies 37,47 also reported significantly higher QoL in the treatment group when comparing postintervention outcomes of treatment and control groups.”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [37]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the QOLIE-31 study Hosseini 37, the mean change in the intervention group was 35.95 (SD 8.74) versus control 8.07 (SD 8.91), P<0.001.

    “Hosseini 37 | 35.95 | 8.74 | 8.07 | 8.91 | < .001”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [37]

    Table 4 reports total-score changes of 35.95 ± 8.74 in the intervention group and 8.07 ± 8.91 in the control group, with a between-group p-value below .001. However, the Procedure section says participants completed the QOLIE-89, not the QOLIE-31 named in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Of the 8 studies (47%) that were excluded from the meta-analysis, 4 studies (50%) reported significant improvements in the treatment group when comparing the postintervention outcomes of treatment and control groups in terms of QOLIE total score.

    “Of the 8 studies (47%) that were excluded from the meta-analysis, 4 studies (50%) 37,39,47,48 reported significant improvements in the treatment group when comparing the postintervention outcomes of treatment and control groups in terms of QOLIE total score (Table 3A).”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [37]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Ebrahimi H, Shafa M, Hakimzade S. Prevalence of epilepsy in Kerman, Iran. Acta Neurol Taiwan 2012;21:115-24.
  2. Arntson P, Droge D, Norton R, Murray E. The perceived psychosocial consequences of having epilepsy. In: Whitman S, Hermann BP, editors. Psychopathology in epilepsy: social dimensions. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 1986. p. 143-61.
  3. Twomey K. A nurse-led educational program to improve the quality of life of women with epilepsy. [dissertation]. [Us] School of Nursing Marian University; 2008 [73 pp.].
  4. Chen S, Creedy D, Lin H, Wollin J. Effect of motivational interviewing intervention on self-management, psychological and glycemic outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Int J Nurs Stud 2012;49:637-44.
  5. Hosseini N, Sharif F, Ahmadi F, Zare M. Disease-based versus patient-based approach in epilepsy management from the patients' point of view a qualitative research. Life Sci J 2012;9(3):1983-90.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hosseini, N., Mokhtari, S., Momeni, E., Vossoughi, M., & Barekatian, M.
Affiliations
  • Yasuj University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Shiraz University (IR)
  • Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Corresponding author
Mokhtari, Somaye
Venue
Epilepsy & Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
55
Pages
70-74
ISSN
1525-5050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2238425414
Cited by
34
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epilepsy & Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
YUMS (845)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
motivational interviewing, epilepsy, quality of life, QOLIE-89, psychological intervention, patient-centered care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Epilepsy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Motivational Interviewing

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