PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
To evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural interventions that include motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PROSPERO CRD42020219881.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PROSPERO CRD42020219881.
摘要：
目的：评估行为干预措施的有效性，包括对成年人体力活动结果的动机性访谈。
方法：系统评价和荟萃分析。
方法：从开始到2023年3月1日发表的随机对照试验的七个数据库中，比较了包括动机性访谈在内的行为干预与没有动机性访谈的对照者对成年人身体活动结果的比较。感兴趣的结果是总身体活动的定量指标变化的差异，中等至剧烈的体力活动（MVPA），久坐的时间。
方法：两位评审员提取数据并评估偏倚风险。人口特征,干预组件，比较组，并对研究结果进行了总结。对于整体主要影响，随机效应荟萃分析用于报告标准化平均差(SMD)和95%置信区间(CIs).基于随访持续时间的差异效应，比较器类型,干预持续时间，并对参与者的疾病或健康状况进行了检查。
结果：129篇论文报告了97项随机对照试验，共27811名参与者和105名比较。在总体力活动的增加（SMD0.45，95％CI0.33至0.65，相当于1323个额外步数/天；低确定性证据）和MVPA（0.45，0.19至0.71，相当于95分钟/周；确定性证据非常低）以及久坐时间的减少（-0.58，-1.03至-0.14，相当于-51分钟/天）方面，干预措施优于比较措施。缺乏与相似强度的比较者相比，任何结果均存在差异的证据。影响的幅度随着时间的推移而减弱，缺乏动机性面试超过一年的效果的证据。大多数干预措施涉及具有特定健康状况的患者，在一般人群样本中，缺乏动机性访谈对增加MVPA或减少久坐时间的影响的证据。
结论：使用动机性访谈作为促进成人总体力活动的复杂行为干预措施的一部分的证据的确定性较低，对于MVPA和久坐时间很低。全部证据表明，尽管动机性访谈的干预措施增加了身体活动并减少了久坐行为，在可以隔离动机性访谈效果的研究中没有发现差异.效力随着时间的推移而减弱，没有证据表明动机性面试可以增加超过一年的体力活动。
背景：PROSPEROCRD42020219881.
方法：系统评价和荟萃分析。
方法：从开始到2023年3月1日发表的随机对照试验的七个数据库中，比较了包括动机性访谈在内的行为干预与没有动机性访谈的对照者对成年人身体活动结果的比较。感兴趣的结果是总身体活动的定量指标变化的差异，中等至剧烈的体力活动（MVPA），久坐的时间。
方法：两位评审员提取数据并评估偏倚风险。人口特征,干预组件，比较组，并对研究结果进行了总结。对于整体主要影响，随机效应荟萃分析用于报告标准化平均差(SMD)和95%置信区间(CIs).基于随访持续时间的差异效应，比较器类型,干预持续时间，并对参与者的疾病或健康状况进行了检查。
结果：129篇论文报告了97项随机对照试验，共27811名参与者和105名比较。在总体力活动的增加（SMD0.45，95％CI0.33至0.65，相当于1323个额外步数/天；低确定性证据）和MVPA（0.45，0.19至0.71，相当于95分钟/周；确定性证据非常低）以及久坐时间的减少（-0.58，-1.03至-0.14，相当于-51分钟/天）方面，干预措施优于比较措施。缺乏与相似强度的比较者相比，任何结果均存在差异的证据。影响的幅度随着时间的推移而减弱，缺乏动机性面试超过一年的效果的证据。大多数干预措施涉及具有特定健康状况的患者，在一般人群样本中，缺乏动机性访谈对增加MVPA或减少久坐时间的影响的证据。
结论：使用动机性访谈作为促进成人总体力活动的复杂行为干预措施的一部分的证据的确定性较低，对于MVPA和久坐时间很低。全部证据表明，尽管动机性访谈的干预措施增加了身体活动并减少了久坐行为，在可以隔离动机性访谈效果的研究中没有发现差异.效力随着时间的推移而减弱，没有证据表明动机性面试可以增加超过一年的体力活动。
背景：PROSPEROCRD42020219881.
