Cited by 176Behavioral Health and InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral and Psychological Studies

The effectiveness of motivational interviewing for health behaviour change in primary care settings: a systematic review

Morton, Katie, Beauchamp, Mark, Prothero, Anna, Joyce, Lauren, Saunders, Laura, Spencer-Bowdage, Sarah, Dancy, Bernadette, Pedlar, Charles·2015·Health Psychology 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

Crossref · 10.1080/17437199.2014.882006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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