SynthesisAtencion primaria2019
[Is the individual motivational interviewing effective in overweight and obesity treatment? A systematic review].
Synthesis in Atencion primaria, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating Obesity Care into Chronic Disease Management in Catalonia: Progress and Challenges in Health System Approaches.Current obesity reports · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of web-based feedback interventions for people with overweight and obesity: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of eating disorders · 2021Review
- The Effectiveness of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Mindfulness Group Intervention for Enhancing the Psychological and Physical Well-Being of Adults with Overweight or Obesity Seeking Treatment: The Mind&Life Randomized Control Trial Study Protocol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Long-Term Evaluation of a UK Community Pharmacy-Based Weight Management Service.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the effectiveness of individual motivational interviewing (MI) in the ambulatory treatment of the overweight and obese.
designThe protocol of this systematic review is registered in PROSPERO N° CDR42017058814. DATABASES: EBSCO-CINAHL, Pubmed, Scielo, PsycoINFO from 2010 to 2017. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies with overweight and obese adult participants, randomized trial and case control studies, with MI being applied individually and face to face, with primary or secondary results in changes in body composition (weight or BMI), published in English or Spanish, with available text and in peer-reviewed journals. DATA EXTRACTION: We obtained anthropometric, behavioral, psychosocial, and other variables as effects of MI. In addition, we collected descriptive variables of the interventions.
resultsEleven articles were included in this revision. There is a great variability between the studies in terms of population, kind of intervention, and time of follow-up. In most of them, some effect was observed in reducing bodyweight, reaching a maximum of 7kg in the group that received the MI. There are positive variations in psychosocial and metabolic variables in the studies.
conclusionsIndividual MI interventions have a modest effect on the variation of bodyweight, and could have a positive impact on behavioral, psychosocial, and other variables. More studies are needed to elucidate the best form of MI application with regard to effectiveness on different variables. The primary healthcare system is in an advantageous position for generating fruitful research on this motivational strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.