Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, ISSN 1918-3003 print, 1918-3011 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Clin Med Res and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website


Volume 9, Number 8, August 2017, pages 659-666

The Influence of Motivational Interviewing on Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review of the Literature


Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram detailing trial search and review tiers.


Table 1. Overview of Retained Studies
ArticleMethodParticipantsIntervention type and durationOutcomes measuredMeasuring instrumentOutcomes results
Mocciaro et al, 2014 [21]Quasi-experimental45 adult patients with IBDGastroenterologists engaged in motivational interviewing during one 45-min routine consultation with patientsPatient-reported satisfaction with provider, perceived provider empathy, provider communication skills, attendance, smoking cessation, adherencePatient self-report and presence at follow-up visitPatient-reported satisfaction with provider, perceived provider empathy, and provider communication skills were significantly higher than patient ratings for prior experiences with providers.
Patients had 100% attendance for the follow-up appointment; 60% of patients quit smoking from initial meeting to follow-up; patients had 95.6% adherence at follow-up.
Berrill et al, 2014 [23]Randomized controlled trial66 adult patients with IBDA six-session multi-convergent intervention occurring over 16 weeks. The first session involved a 40-min motivational interviewing session.Quality of life, advice-seeking behaviorPatient self-reportIntervention group did not experience significantly greater quality of life.
Subgroup of intervention group experiencing IBS-symptoms experienced a significant increase in quality of life at conclusion of study.
Intervention group was significantly more likely to seek advice at 12 month follow-up.
Moshkovska et al, 2011 [22]Randomized controlled trial71 adult patients with ulcerative colitisA medical doctor conducted a 20- to 30-min one-on-one session with each patient that helped them identify barriers to adherence.
Patients were also given education and motivational interviewing to attend to concerns.
AdherenceHigh performance liquid chromatography to assess urine sampleAt 48-week follow-up, adherence was significantly greater for intervention group, which indicated a smaller decline in adherence since both groups experienced a reduction in adherence rates over the course of the study.
Cook et al, 2010 [24]Quasi-experimental278 adult patients with ulcerative colitisRegistered nurses conducted telephone sessions with cognitive behavioral and motivational interviewing techniques. Over 6-month intervention, patients received an average of four calls lasting 13 min.Adherence (defined as months of completed treatment)Patient self-report during phone callsOver 6 months, patients had higher rates of self-reported adherence than a comparison population baseline.


Table 2. Assessment of risk of bias
SourceSequence generationAllocation concealmentBlinding (patient-reported outcomes)Incomplete outcome data addressed?Free of selective reporting?Free of other bias?
Berrill et al [23]YesComment: Patients were randomized to an active or control group using a blocked randomization methodYesComment: Sequences for intervention were placed in sealed opaque envelopesNoComment: Authors state participants were not blindedYesComment: 8 patients did not attend intervention; 6 dropped out during study. In control group, 1 patient was lost to follow-upYesComment: Methods and outcomes all reportedYesComment: No other biases noted in this study
Cook et al [24]NoComment: There was no control groupNoComment: Nurses delivering intervention were aware of patient status in groupNoComment: Participants were contacted by study personnel who explained program. Unclear what exactly was explainedYesComment: Authors reported number of patients who dropped out and compared their demographics and baseline adherence to patients’ who remained in study.YesComment: Methods and outcomes all reportedYesComment: No other biases noted in this study
Mocciaro et al [21]NoComment: There was no control groupNoComment: Physicians delivering intervention were aware of patient status in groupUnclearComment: Not specifically stated if patients knew details of interventionYesComment: Authors stated all patients attended follow-up visitYesComment: Methods and outcomes all reportedYesComment: No other biases noted in this study
Moshkovska et al [22]YesComment: Computer-generated randomization schedule was used. Blocking was also used.YesComment: Authors stated that sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes containing the sequence were used.YesComment: Authors stated investigator recruiting patients was blinded to content of envelopes, but interventionist and patients were not blinded.YesComment: Authors reported number of patients who withdrew due to medical reasons and who were lost to follow-up. Authors stated withdrawal rates were similar for intervention and control groups.YesComment: Methods and outcomes all reportedYesComment: No other biases noted in this study