Cargando…
Effect of Motivational Interviewing on a Weight Loss Program Based on the Protection Motivation Theory
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of overweight and obesity is on the increase the world over, which imposes an ever-increasing burden on societies and health care systems. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the effect of motivational interviewing (MI) on a weight-loss program based on the protec...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Kowsar
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4568028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26380106 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.23492v2 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The prevalence of overweight and obesity is on the increase the world over, which imposes an ever-increasing burden on societies and health care systems. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the effect of motivational interviewing (MI) on a weight-loss program based on the protection motivation theory (PMT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized clinical trial study, comprising pretest-posttest with a control group, was conducted on 150 overweight and obese women attending a private nutrition clinic for the first time. Samples were randomly selected using the clinic’s records and then allocated to three groups (50 women in each group) receiving: 1) a standard weight-control program; 2) motivational interviewing; and 3) MI plus intention intervention. Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire through in-person interviews and were analyzed using SPSS (version 11) and statistical tests, including the Kruskal-Wallis test, one-way analysis of variance, paired t-test, and linear regression model. RESULTS: In the two intervention groups, the PMT construct scores, namely susceptibility (P = 0.001), severity (P = 0.001), rewards (P =0.004), self-efficacy (P = 0.001), response efficacy (P = 0.001), and costs (P = 0.014), were significantly increased compared to those in the control group. The anthropometric status was statistically significant in the MI group (P = 0.001) and the MI plus intention-intervention group (P = 0.001) at 2 months’ follow-up, while in the control group, weight was meaningfully different after the intervention (P = 0.027). Weight was different between the groups after the intervention, with the Tukey test demonstrating that the differences were statistically significant between the control group and the MI group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that MI, combined with the implementation of intention intervention, increased weight loss and PMT construct scores in our study population. |
---|