ArticleEuropean journal for person centered healthcare2018
"Focusing" in Motivational Interviewing: development of a training tool for practitioners.
Article in European journal for person centered healthcare, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Motivational Interviewing (MI) in Obesity Care: Cultivating Person-Centered and Supportive Clinical Conversations to Reduce Stigma: A Narrative Review.Obesity science & practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AIMS AND
objectivesMotivational Interviewing (MI) is an individual-level approach to behaviour change that has been evaluated in over 600 randomised clinical trials across multiple settings. Increasingly, research efforts focus on how MI works and how it can best be integrated into public health and clinical programmes. As the application of MI expands, a key integration challenge involves specifying the focus of a conversation such that a practitioner might ignite and intensify a patient's internal motivation for change related to that focus. At present, this challenge is poorly conceptualised. We aimed to clarify the construct of "focusing" and to develop a practical tool that can be used to develop and assess practitioner competence.
methodFirst we reviewed validated MI measures to elucidate current conceptualisations of focusing. Second, we identified practitioner speech acts that led to topic transitions. We then drafted the first version of MIFI. A gold standard rater, together with one expert MI and 3 non-expert MI raters, each used MIFI to coded 20 audio recordings from a feasibility study of MI and breastfeeding maintenance (n=170 observations). Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability analyses were conducted.
resultsPublished MI measures include 'focusing' as a strategy to agree a target change or to hold attention on that change target. We observed practitioners create or shift focus using 4 skills: questions, listening statements, giving information or meta-statements. Moderate to strong correlations were demonstrated between 4 of 5 global measures on the MIFI. Reliability estimates were good to excellent overall (5 coder ICCs>0.65), fair to excellent for the non-expert coding group (ICCs>0.55) and for the best coding pair (MI expert and non-expert ICCs >0.52).
conclusionWe offer conceptual clarity about focusing in MI and have developed a tool to train practitioners in "focusing" when integrating MI into healthcare and public health interventions.
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.