The Effects of Nurse-Led Motivational Interviewing on Exercise and Quality of Life among Koreans with Heart Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Lee, Haejung; Park, Gaeun; Jin, Hye-Kyung; Chun, Kook Jin; Kim, Jong Hyun

doi:10.7475/kjan.2021.33.6.588

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, 97 unique randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of 105 interventions comprising motivational interviewing in 27 811 participants were included. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of behavioural interventions with motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhu,

Sinha,

Kirk

et al. 2024

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural interventions that include motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Study selection A search of seven databases for randomised controlled trials published from inception to 1 March 2023 comparing a behavioural intervention including motivational interviewing with a comparator without motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults. Outcomes of interest were differences in change in quantitative measures of total physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and sedentary time. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Population characteristics, intervention components, comparison groups, and outcomes of studies were summarised. For overall main effects, random effects meta-analyses were used to report standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Differential effects based on duration of follow-up, comparator type, intervention duration, and disease or health condition of participants were also examined. Results 129 papers reporting 97 randomised controlled trials totalling 27 811 participants and 105 comparisons were included. Interventions including motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for increases in total physical activity (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.65, equivalent to 1323 extra steps/day; low certainty evidence) and MVPA (0.45, 0.19 to 0.71, equivalent to 95 extra min/week; very low certainty evidence) and for reductions in sedentary time (−0.58, −1.03 to −0.14, equivalent to −51 min/day; very low certainty evidence). Evidence for a difference in any outcome compared with comparators of similar intensity was lacking. The magnitude of effect diminished over time, and evidence of an effect of motivational interviewing beyond one year was lacking. Most interventions involved patients with a specific health condition, and evidence of an effect of motivational interviewing to increase MVPA or decrease sedentary time was lacking in general population samples. Conclusions Certainty of the evidence using motivational interviewing as part of complex behavioural interventions for promoting total physical activity in adults was low, and for MVPA and sedentary time was very low. The totality of evidence suggests that although interventions with motivational interviewing increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behaviour, no difference was found in studies where the effect of motivational interviewing could be isolated. Effectiveness waned over time, with no evidence of a benefit of motivational interviewing to increase physical activity beyond one year. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020219881.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of behavioural interventions with motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhu,

Sinha,

Kirk

et al. 2024

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Type 2 diabetes [53,56,58,59,66,67,81,84,88,92,93,97,99,104,107,[114][115][116]119,122,123,[126][127][128]130,131,140,145,146,155,157,159,165,168,172,182,184] and heart disease [62,64,65,70,72,73,75,80,85,87,96,98,102,106,109,[111][112]...…”

Section: Chronic Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8). For objectively measured physical function, 4% (2/47) of the RCTs were classified as low risk of bias [110,158], 70% (33/47) of the RCTs had some concerns [54,55,64,71,74,79,82,87,94,96,97,102,105,108,117,118,120,121,124,133,136,147,156,159,167,171,175,178,183,185,186,190], and 26% (12/47) of the RCTs were classified as high risk of bias [57,63,91,112,126,149,[151][152][153][154]163,164,170,176] (Figure 9). The risk of bias profiles were similar for the secondary outcomes (Multimedia Ap...…”

Section: Effect On Secondary Outcomes At Follow-upmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mean number of digital sessions was 97.98 (SD 109.29; range 2-377), whereas in-person sessions had a mean of 3.26 (SD 2.93; range 0-18). Of the included RCTs, 31[54,58,62,65,70,76,77,82,84,86,88,92,94,95,100,101,112,121,132,135,143,144,146,150,151,155,163,164,174,182,186,[189][190][191]197] had follow-up data, and the mean follow-up time was 45.38 (SD 21.74; range 12-104) weeks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Benefits and Harms of Digital Health Interventions Promoting Physical Activity in People With Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zangger¹,

Liaghat²,

Juhl³

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Digital health interventions for managing chronic conditions have great potential. However, the benefits and harms are still unclear. Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the benefits and harms of digital health interventions in promoting physical activity in people with chronic conditions. Methods We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to October 2022. Eligible randomized controlled trials were included if they used a digital component in physical activity promotion in adults with ≥1 of the following conditions: depression or anxiety, ischemic heart disease or heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, knee or hip osteoarthritis, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes. The primary outcomes were objectively measured physical activity and physical function (eg, walk or step tests). We used a random effects model (restricted maximum likelihood) for meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses to assess the impact of study-level covariates. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results Of 14,078 hits, 130 randomized controlled trials were included. Compared with usual care or minimal intervention, digital health interventions increased objectively measured physical activity (end of intervention: standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.29, 95% CI 0.21-0.37; follow-up: SMD 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.31) and physical function (end of intervention: SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.12-0.59; follow-up: SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.01-0.57). The secondary outcomes also favored the digital health interventions for subjectively measured physical activity and physical function, depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life at the end of the intervention but only subjectively measured physical activity at follow-up. The risk of nonserious adverse events, but not serious adverse events, was higher in the digital health interventions at the end of the intervention, but no difference was seen at follow-up. Conclusions Digital health interventions improved physical activity and physical function across various chronic conditions. Effects on depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life were only observed at the end of the intervention. The risk of nonserious adverse events is present during the intervention, which should be addressed. Future studies should focus on better reporting, comparing the effects of different digital health solutions, and investigating how intervention effects are sustained beyond the end of the intervention. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42020189028; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189028

show abstract

Benefits and Harms of Digital Health Interventions Promoting Physical Activity in People With Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Zangger¹,

Liaghat²,

Juhl³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Digital health interventions to manage chronic conditions have large potential. However, the benefits and harms are still questioned. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the benefits and harms of digital health interventions in promoting physical activity in people with chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the benefits and harms of digital health interventions in promoting physical activity in people with chronic conditions. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL from the inception to Oct. 2021. Eligible RCTs were included if they used a digital component in physical activity promotion in adults with one or more conditions: depression or anxiety, ischemic heart disease or heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, knee or hip osteoarthritis, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes. The primary outcomes were objectively measured physical activity and physical function (e.g., walk or step tests). We used a random-effects model (REML) for the meta-analyses and meta-regressions analyses to assess the impact of study-level covariates. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS Of 10 967 hits, 99 RCTs were included. Compared to usual care/minimal intervention, digital health interventions increased objectively measured physical activity in the short-term (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.43) and long-term (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.38), but not physical function (short-term: SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.59, long-term: SMD 0.35; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.73). Secondary outcomes favored the digital interventions for subjectively measured physical activity and physical function, depression, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in the short-term. The risk of non-serious adverse events, but not serious, was higher in the digital interventions in the short-term. CONCLUSIONS Digital health interventions improved physical activity across various chronic conditions, while short-term effects on physical function, depression, and HRQOL were observed. Future studies should compare the effects of different digital solutions. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42020189028.

show abstract

The Effects of Nurse-Led Motivational Interviewing on Exercise and Quality of Life among Koreans with Heart Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Cited by 3 publications

References 25 publications

Effectiveness of behavioural interventions with motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Effectiveness of behavioural interventions with motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Benefits and Harms of Digital Health Interventions Promoting Physical Activity in People With Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Benefits and Harms of Digital Health Interventions Promoting Physical Activity in People With Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About