Effects of Motivational Interviewing Intervention on Self-Management, Psychological Outcomes and Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Tuesday, 8 July 2008: 3:15 PM
Shu-Ming Chen, PhD , Nursing, Fooyin University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Debra Creedy , RCNA, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Judy Wollin, PhD , Nursing, Griffith University, Longan, Australia

Learning Objective 1: know the effects of motivational interviewing in type 2 diabetes care.

Learning Objective 2: increase the knowledge of motivational skills in their nursing practice.

Self-management is the cornerstone of diabetes control but it is difficult to motivate or empower people to self-manage their condition. Self-management is important to control the condition and prevent serious complications. The present study aimed to determine whether participation in a motivational interview by people with Type II diabetes would improve their self-management and psychological well being.

Method: A randomized controlled trial with a sample of 286 Taiwanese people attending the outpatients department of a large tertiary hospital. Individuals received either the motivational interview intervention or usual care and were followed for 3 months. The intervention was based on a stage-matched Transtheoretical Model of change (TTM). The Motivational Interview (MI) encompassed a variety of interviewing techniques, and reflected each person's readiness stage to change. The control group was provided with usual care consisting of diabetes educational sessions and attendance at a Diabetes Club provided by nursing staff at the hospital. Outcome measures included blood glucose levels, knowledge and skills about the management of diabetes, self efficacy and DASS-21.

Results: Results showed that the motivational interview did improve stage of change (x2= 7.77, p= 0.005; OR=0.15, 95% CI= 0.07-0.28), diabetes knowledge (x2= 24.71, p< 0.001; OR=0.31, 95% CI= 0.15-0.65), diabetes self-management (x2= 16.56, p< 0.001; OR=0.30, 95% CI= 0.16-0.54), diabetes management self-efficacy scores (x2= 7.99, p= 0.005; OR= 0.44, 95% CI= 0.24-0.80) and HbA1c levels (t= 4.25, p< 0.001; OR= 0.42, 95% CI= 0.25-0.71) compared to the control group. The findings provide important evidence concerning the effect of motivational interventions that incorporate participants' readiness to change. The research informs future clinical practice in diabetes self-management, and provides recommendations for further research in this area.