CONTEXT: Motivational interviewing (MI) is a communication method to help facilitate adherence to health behaviors through a series of person-centered strategies. MI’s evidence base supports its use as a potential intervention strategy at the parental decision-maker level to impact young children’s lifestyle behaviors to address childhood obesity; however, clarity is needed on the literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the literature examining the use of MI at the parental level to impact young children’s weight status. DATA SOURCES: A modified Cochrane method of systematic search and review was conducted in several databases (eg, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and SPORTDiscus). STUDY SELECTION: Criteria for retention included randomized controlled trials and studies using varied settings, methods, interventionists, target behaviors, and outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Extraction domains included study characteristics and risk of bias. RESULTS: Of the 352 references initially identified, 7 studies were included in the review. In most studies, authors reported significant anthropometric changes as well as significant changes in nonanthropometric outcomes related to weight management compared to usual care. LIMITATIONS: The heterogeneity of the included studies and lack of comparison with attention control groups may cloud generalizations. Studies not written in English were excluded, possibly biasing the results. CONCLUSIONS: MI, compared to usual care, revealed positive effects for parent influence on young child anthropometric measures when applied. Future research should be focused on sample diversity, using attention control groups, using exercise physiologists for MI delivery, and reporting sex-specific results.

No abstract

The U.S. Cooperative Extension Service (CE) has potential to deliver the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) to rural residents with prediabetes. However, the CE remains underutilized for the delivery of NDPP. We compared the feasibility/effectiveness of the NDPP (0–6 mos.) delivered by CE personnel to rural residents with prediabetes using Zoom® (CE-Zoom®) or by our research staff using Facebook® (FB). Adults (n = 31, age ~55 years) were enrolled (CE-Zoom® n = 16, FB n = 15). Attendance did not differ significantly between groups (CE Zoom® = 69%, FB = 83%, p = 0.15). Participant retention was similar in the CE Zoom® (88%) and FB groups (87%). CE-Zoom® and FB® groups provided weekly, self-monitoring data for 83% and 84% of the 24 potential weeks, respectively. Six-month weight loss was not different between groups (CE-Zoom® = −5.99 ± 8.0 kg, −5.4%, FB = −1.68 ± 3.3 kg, −1.6% p = 0.13). Participants achieving ≥5% weight loss was greater in the CE-Zoom® (44%) compared with the FB group (7%, p = 0.04). Participants achieving the NDPP program goal for physical activity (≥150 min/week) did not differ (CE-Zoom® = 75%, FB = 67%, p = 0.91). This pilot trial demonstrated the potential feasibility and effectiveness of the NDPP delivered by CE personnel in a group remote format (Zoom®) to adults with prediabetes living in rural areas.

Objectives: Women have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome than their male counterparts, and interventions should target women with or at risk for metabolic syndrome. The objective of this study was to compare two intervention strategies on long-term outcomes following the completion of an exercise intervention. Methods: Twenty-six women ( M age = 43.35 ± 9.03) with at least one risk factor for metabolic syndrome were randomized into either a motivational interviewing group ( n = 10) or self-regulation-based mobile messaging control group ( n = 16) as a 12-week follow-up to a 10-week, 30-session exercise intervention. Outcomes of interest were body fat percentage, bone mineral density, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, triglycerides, high-density cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose. Results: Mixed ANOVAs revealed a significant effect for group × time for body fat percentage F(1, 24) = 8.30, p = 0.01, [Formula: see text] = 0.26, bone mineral density F(1, 24) = 6.68, p = 0.02, [Formula: see text] = 0.22, waist circumference F(1, 24) = 10.35, p = 0.01, [Formula: see text] = 0.30, triglycerides F(1, 24) = 5.06, p = 0.03, [Formula: see text] = 0.17, and systolic blood pressure F(1, 24) = 5.39, p = 0.03, [Formula: see text] = 0.18 all in favor of the motivational interviewing group after 12 weeks when compared to the self-regulation-based mobile messaging group. No significant effect for group × time was noted for diastolic blood pressure p = 0.36, [Formula: see text] = 0.04, high-density cholesterol p = 0.08, [Formula: see text] = 0.12, or fasting blood glucose p = 0.85, [Formula: see text] = 0.01 when comparing the motivational interviewing and self-regulation-based mobile messaging groups. Conclusions: Motivational interviewing may be a more impactful solution to extend the effects of exercise intervention studies compared to a self-regulation-based mobile messaging control group. Future interventions should focus on increasing sample size, utilizing more objective measures of body composition, utilizing booster sessions, and increasing the length of follow-up periods.

No abstract