Sarah J Miller1, Kelly Foran-Tuller2, Jessica Ledergerber3, Lina Jandorf4. 1. Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: sarah.miller@mssm.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, United States Department of Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA. 3. Western University of Health Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, Panoma, CA, USA. 4. Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Health screenings, physical tests that diagnose disease, are underutilized. Motivational interviewing (MI) may increase health screening rates. This paper systematically reviewed the published articles that examined the efficacy of MI for improving health screening uptake. METHODS: Articles published before April 28, 2015 were reviewed from PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Study methodology, participant demographics, outcomes and quality were extracted from each article. RESULTS: Of the 1573 abstracts, 13 met inclusion criteria. Of the 13 studies, 6 found MI more efficacious than a control, 2 found MI more efficacious than a weak control yet equivalent to an active control, and 3 found MI was not significantly better than a control. Two single arm studies reported improvements in health screening rates following an MI intervention. CONCLUSIONS: MI shows promise for improving health screening uptake. However, given the mixed results, the variability amongst the studies and the limited number of randomized trials, it is difficult to discern the exact impact of MI on health screening uptake. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future research is needed to better understand the impact of MI in this context. Such research would determine whether MI should be integrated into standard clinical practice for improving health screening uptake.
OBJECTIVE: Health screenings, physical tests that diagnose disease, are underutilized. Motivational interviewing (MI) may increase health screening rates. This paper systematically reviewed the published articles that examined the efficacy of MI for improving health screening uptake. METHODS: Articles published before April 28, 2015 were reviewed from PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Study methodology, participant demographics, outcomes and quality were extracted from each article. RESULTS: Of the 1573 abstracts, 13 met inclusion criteria. Of the 13 studies, 6 found MI more efficacious than a control, 2 found MI more efficacious than a weak control yet equivalent to an active control, and 3 found MI was not significantly better than a control. Two single arm studies reported improvements in health screening rates following an MI intervention. CONCLUSIONS: MI shows promise for improving health screening uptake. However, given the mixed results, the variability amongst the studies and the limited number of randomized trials, it is difficult to discern the exact impact of MI on health screening uptake. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future research is needed to better understand the impact of MI in this context. Such research would determine whether MI should be integrated into standard clinical practice for improving health screening uptake.
Authors: Barbara Valanis; Evelyn E Whitlock; John Mullooly; Thomas Vogt; Sabina Smith; ChuHe Chen; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Prev Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Angulique Y Outlaw; Sylvie Naar-King; Jeffrey T Parsons; Monique Green-Jones; Heather Janisse; Elizabeth Secord Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mary E Costanza; Roger Luckmann; Anne M Stoddard; Mary Jo White; Jennifer R Stark; Jill S Avrunin; Milagros C Rosal; Lynn Clemow Journal: Cancer Detect Prev Date: 2007-07-23
Authors: Gillian Haddock; Ruth Beardmore; Paul Earnshaw; Mike Fitzsimmons; Sarah Nothard; Rebecca Butler; Emily Eisner; Christine Barrowclough Journal: J Ment Health Date: 2012-02
Authors: Sarah J Miller; Jamilia R Sly; Kemi B Gaffney; Zhiye Jiang; Brittney Henry; Lina Jandorf Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: L J van der Donk; J Fleer; R Sanderman; P M G Emmelkamp; T P Links; K A Tovote; M J Schroevers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Charles R Rogers; Kola Okuyemi; Electra D Paskett; Roland J Thorpe; Tiana N Rogers; Man Hung; Susan Zickmund; Colin Riley; Michael D Fetters Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Novia Niannian Long; Michele Petrova Xin Ling Lau; Ainsley Ryan Yan Bin Lee; Natalie Elizabeth Yam; Nicholas Ye Kai Koh; Cyrus Su Hui Ho Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-04-26
Authors: Janice A Chilton; Monica L Rasmus; Jay Lytton; Charles D Kaplan; Lovell A Jones; Thelma C Hurd Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Helen Frost; Pauline Campbell; Margaret Maxwell; Ronan E O'Carroll; Stephan U Dombrowski; Brian Williams; Helen Cheyne; Emma Coles; Alex Pollock Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 3.240