ArticleBJGP open2020
The effect of training GPs in motivational interviewing on incident cardiovascular disease and mortality in people with screen-detected diabetes. Results from the ADDITION-Denmark randomised trial.
Article in BJGP open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Motivational Interviewing Education on General Practitioners' and Trainees' Learning and Diabetes Outcomes in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no long-term evidence on the effectiveness of training for motivational interviewing in diabetes treatment.
aimWithin a trial of intensive treatment of people with screen-detected diabetes, which included training in motivational interviewing for GPs, the study examined the effect of the intervention on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality. DESIGN &
settingIn the ADDITION-Denmark trial, 181 general practices were cluster randomised in a 2:1:1 ratio to: (i) to screening plus routine care of individuals with screen-detected diabetes (control group); (ii) screening plus training and support in intensive multifactorial treatment of individuals with screen-detected diabetes (intensive treatment group); or (iii) screening plus training and support in intensive multifactorial treatment and motivational interviewing for individuals with screen-detected diabetes (intensive treatment plus motivational interviewing group). The study took place from 2001-2009.
methodAfter around 8 years follow-up, rates of first fatal and non-fatal CVD events and all-cause mortality were compared between screen-detected individuals in the three treatment groups.
resultsCompared with the routine care group, the risk of CVD was similar in the intensive treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.50) and the intensive treatment plus motivational interviewing group (HR 1.26, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.64). The incidence of death was similar in all three treatment groups.
conclusionTraining of GPs in intensive multifactorial treatment, with or without motivational interviewing, was not associated with a reduction in mortality or CVD among those with screen-detected diabetes.
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.