Motivational Interviewing as a Strategy to Impact Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients: A Systematic Review.

backgroundHeart failure (HF) hospitalization is an expensive healthcare utilization event. Motivational interviewing (MI) has been studied for effects on HF self-management behaviors.

objectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to conduct an exploration and report of evidence and gaps in the literature regarding the impact of MI on HF outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A modified Cochrane systematic review was conducted via a literature search in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Collaborative Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and Google Scholar databases. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND

interventionsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled experimental studies published in English from January 1990 to February 2019 that included adults (18 years and older) diagnosed with HF New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I, II, II, or IV were eligible for inclusion. Interventions evaluated were an MI-based face-to-face communication or telephone-based conversation provided by any healthcare provider type. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsThe Cochrane method for assessing risk of bias was used to analyze the methodological quality of retained studies.

resultsOf 167 initial articles, nine were retained, describing eight unique studies (758 total patients, range 30-241; age range 58-79 years; attrition range 13-36%). The impact of MI was examined for general self-care behaviors (SCBs) (physical activity specifically), quality of life (QoL), and/or hospital readmission prevention. Eight of nine articles reported a positive impact of MI over advice-giving, seven being statistically significant. MI interventions used an initial face-to-face encounter with three to five follow-up telephone encounters. LIMITATIONS: This systematic review had the following limitations: most retained studies included intervention activities conducted in hospital/clinic settings, which limits generalizability of the intervention in other care settings; intervention fidelity, blinding, selection, interventionist training, and random assignment were not clear in all studies; retained studies did not include potential covariates such as health literacy, patient age, and perception of disease/health risks; and some retained studies relied on patient self-report of outcomes, which may introduce recall or social desirability bias. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY

findingsMI demonstrated a positive effect on the SCB hospital readmission prevention factor and on QoL. MI delivered with greater frequency and over a longer duration may improve the immediate risk of hospital readmission as well as long-term outcomes through better medication adherence and SCBs. However, heterogeneity in the methods, design, intervention type, and structure challenged comparisons across studies and further research is warranted.