A guided talk gave patients a modest edge, with clear gains on alcohol.
HelpedThe short version
Across 48 studies, people given a guided talk improved more often than other groups did.

- 48
- studies pooled
- 9,618
- patients in medical care
- 1 tool
- tested
The review
Who took part
9,618 people took part in 48 studies. The studies were in hospitals, clinics and emergency rooms.
What they did
Patients had a guided talk with a trained helper about their own reasons to change. The talks lasted about 106 minutes on average. The other groups got usual care, a leaflet or a waiting list, and their time averaged 30 minutes.
What happened
Overall, people who had the talk were more likely to improve. Alcohol use, smoking, sitting less and keeping track of their health all improved more. Safe sex, healthy eating, medicines and blood sugar showed no clear difference. Results varied a lot between studies.
What the review found
- HelpedGoals
Across 48 studies, people given a guided talk improved more often than other groups did.
Pooled analysis of 48 studies with 9,618 people · vs people on usual care, a leaflet or a waiting list · ⚠ results look too good to be true; the studies disagreed a lot
- HelpedGoals
Across 9 studies, people given a guided talk drank less alcohol than other groups did.
Pooled analysis of 9 studies · vs people on usual care, a leaflet or a waiting list · ⚠ results look too good to be true
- HelpedGoals
Across 5 studies, people given a guided talk moved more and sat less than other groups.
Pooled analysis of 5 studies · vs people on usual care, a leaflet or a waiting list · ⚠ results look too good to be true
- HelpedMotivation
Across 7 studies, people given a guided talk felt more confident about changing.
Pooled analysis of 7 studies · vs people on usual care, a leaflet or a waiting list · they rated themselves · ⚠ results look too good to be true
How solid is this?
- Large group
- Summary claims more than the results show
Source
Motivational interviewing in medical care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (2013)
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.07.012 (opens in a new tab)

