The effectiveness of motivational interviewing for health behaviour change in primary care settings: a systematic review
Abstract
Motivational interviewing (MI) is a patient-centred approach to behaviour change that was originally developed in the addiction field but has increasingly been applied to public health settings with a focus on health promotion. The purpose of this review was to examine the evidence base for MI interventions in primary care settings with non-clinical populations to achieve behaviour change for physical activity, dietary behaviours and/or alcohol intake. We also sought to explore the specific behaviour change techniques included in MI interventions within primary care. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles and 33 papers met inclusion criteria and were included. Approximately 50% of the included studies (n = 18) demonstrated positive effects in relation to health behaviour change. The efficacy of MI approaches is unclear given the inconsistency of MI descriptions and intervention components. Furthermore, research designs that do not isolate the effects of MI make it difficult to determine the effectiveness of such approaches. We offer a number of recommendations for researchers and practitioners seeking to include MI within behaviour change interventions to help improve the quality of the research and the effectiveness of MI-based interventions within primary care settings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Morton et al. had considerable difficulty in identifying the necessary components of motivational interviewing and as a result found it difficult to synthesise evidence of efficacy.
“Morton et al. 44 had considerable difficulty in identifying the necessary components of motivational interviewing and as a result found it difficult to synthesise evidence of efficacy.”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 176
- Authors
- Morton, K., Beauchamp, M., Prothero, A., Joyce, L., Saunders, L., Spencer-Bowdage, S., Dancy, B., & Pedlar, C.
- Affiliations
- St Mary's University Twickenham London (GB)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Public Health Wales (GB)
- Haringey Council (GB)
- Centre for Workplace and Community Health, St. Mary's University Twickenham, London, UK
- Corresponding author
- Morton, Katie
- Venue
- Health Psychology Review
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-02-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 205-223
- ISSN
- 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-7202
- OpenAlex
- W2043880809
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- St Mary's University Repository (St Mary's University Twickenham London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- motivational interviewing, health behavior change, primary care, physical activity, dietary behaviour, alcohol consumption, behaviour change techniques, non-clinical population, intervention effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- Behavior Therapy, Health Promotion, Humans, Primary Health Care, Health Behavior, 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