CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 361Diabetes Management and EducationBehavioral Health and InterventionsObesity and Health Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Motivational Interviewing to Improve Adherence to a Behavioral Weight-Control Program for Older Obese Women With NIDDM: A pilot study

Smith, Delia E, Heckemeyer, Christine M, Kratt, Polly P, Mason, Dehryl A·1997·Diabetes Care
DOI 10.2337/diacare.20.1.52
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized pilot study was to examine whether the addition of motivational interviewing strategies to a behavioral obesity intervention enhances adherence and glucose control in older obese women with NIDDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-two older obese women (41% black) with NIDDM were randomly assigned to 1) a standard 16-week group behavioral weight-control program that provided instruction in diet, exercise, and behavioral modification or 2) the same group behavioral program with three individualized motivational interviewing sessions added. RESULTS: The motivational group attended significantly more group meetings (13.3 vs. 8.9), completed significantly more food diaries (15.2 vs. 10.1), and recorded blood glucose significantly more often (46.0 vs. 32.2 days) than the standard group. Further, participants in the motivational group had significantly better glucose control post-treatment (9.8 vs. 10.8%). Although both groups demonstrated significant weight loss, no differences were apparent between groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that augmenting a standard behavioral treatment program for obese women with NIDDM with a motivational interviewing component may significantly enhance adherence to program recommendations and glycemic control. Preliminary data warrant further investigation with larger samples and a longer follow-up.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/diacare.20.1.52

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–361 of 361

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Smith, D. E., Heckemeyer, C. M., Kratt, P. P., & Mason, D. A.
Affiliations
University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Published
1997-01-01
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
52-54
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
DOI
10.2337/diacare.20.1.52
OpenAlex
W1992966219
Cited by
359
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 24
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
LifeScan
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity and Health Practices
Keywords
motivational interviewing, type 2 diabetes, obesity, older women, medication adherence, glycemic control, blood glucose monitoring, food diary, weight loss, group intervention
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Motivation, Patient Compliance, Patient Participation, Pilot Projects, Weight Loss

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