CONTEXT:

Successful treatment approaches are needed for obesity in adolescents. Motivational interviewing (MI), a counseling approach designed to enhance behavior change, shows promise in promoting healthy lifestyle changes.

OBJECTIVE:

Conduct a systematic review of MI for treating overweight and obesity in adolescents and meta-analysis of its effects on anthropometric and cardiometabolic outcomes.

DATA SOURCES:

We searched Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from January 1997 to April 2018.

STUDY SELECTION:

Four authors reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles.

DATA EXTRACTION:

Two authors abstracted data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence.

RESULTS:

Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria; 11 were included in the meta-analysis. There were nonsignificant effects on reducing BMI (mean difference [MD] −0.27; 95% confidence interval −0.98 to 0.44) and BMI percentile (MD −1.07; confidence interval −3.63 to 1.48) and no discernable effects on BMI z score, waist circumference, glucose, triglycerides, cholesterol, or fasting insulin. Optimal information size necessary for detecting statistically significant MDs was not met for any outcome. Qualitative synthesis suggests MI may improve health-related behaviors, especially when added to complementary interventions.

LIMITATIONS:

Small sample sizes, overall moderate risk of bias, and short follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS:

MI alone does not seem effective for treating overweight and obesity in adolescents, but sample size and study dose, delivery, and duration issues complicate interpretation of the results. Larger, longer duration studies may be needed to properly assess MI for weight management in adolescents.

Obesity in youth is a serious public health concern, with global prevalence increasing 10-fold in just 40 years.1 In 2013–2014, the prevalence of obesity and extreme obesity in US adolescents were 20.6% and 9.1%, respectively, representing an increase in prevalence of ∼10% and 6% over a 20- to 25-year period.2 Excess weight in adolescence is associated with acute and long-term health consequences that are compounded when obesity is maintained into adulthood.2,5 There is strong evidence that the majority of adolescents with overweight and obesity become adults with obesity. The National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979 found that 62% and 73% of men and women, respectively, with overweight in adolescence became adults with obesity, and 80% and 92% of women and men, respectively, who were adolescents with obesity became adults with obesity.6 

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently concluded that comprehensive lifestyle-based weight loss interventions with at minimum 26 contact hours over 2 to 12 months are likely helpful for achieving weight loss in children and adolescents with overweight or obesity.2 The effective intervention components varied, with sessions delivered both individually and via groups. They frequently included sessions targeting both the parent and child, nutrition education, and interactive physical activity sessions. Numerous approaches were included in the systematic evidence review, including motivational interviewing (MI); however, the authors did not examine the results by type of intervention. Small but promising decreases in BMI z scores were reported for lifestyle-based weight loss interventions overall. Interestingly, only 6 of the 42 studies included adolescent populations, and only 1 study with adolescents revealed a statistically significant effect.

MI is one potential approach for promoting lifestyle change in the treatment of adolescents with overweight and obesity. MI is a patient-centered counseling style that explores, strengthens, and guides an individual’s motivation for change.7 It not only engages youth in health discussions but also encourages behavior change through therapeutic alliances.7,13 

Miller first used MI with adults for alcohol abuse; however, there has been increasing interest in applying it to other health behaviors.14 Considerable evidence has indicated that MI may be effective to treat substance use disorders and to promote behavior change related to HIV, exercise, diet, tobacco use, and dental care in adults.15,16 There is considerably less but promising evidence suggesting MI interventions may be effective for changing health behaviors in adolescents.17,18 However, meta-analyses in 2009 and 2010 indicated the effectiveness of MI across target behaviors and providers is highly variable.19,20 Variability in fidelity or “trueness to MI” have been cited as possible explanations for the inconsistencies in efficacy in MI-based intervention studies.21,22 

Two meta-analyses in 2014 suggested that MI interventions for promoting pediatric health behavior change appear to be effective.17,23 Cushing et al17 reported a small, significant aggregate positive effect size for MI interventions targeting adolescents for short-term health behavior changes (g = 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.27)17 that seemed to be sustained in the longer term. However, the authors aggregated outcome effects across several health behaviors and outcomes. Of the 15 studies that were included, only 5 included participants who were overweight and obese. Since this publication, an additional 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) plus 4 other types of studies in which MI-based interventions for adolescents with overweight and obesity were examined have been published.

We conducted a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis to synthesize the currently available evidence assessing the effects of MI-based interventions on anthropometric (reduction in pounds, kilograms, BMI and/or BMI z score, or percentile from baseline to last available follow-up) and cardiometabolic outcomes in adolescents with overweight and obesity. We also qualitatively describe the impact of MI on health behaviors (nutrition, physical activity, and/or sleep) and/or quality of life in adolescents with overweight and obesity.

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and checklist to guide the conduct and reporting of this review. Before data extraction was complete, we developed and registered a protocol on PROSPERO (#CRD42017072342), available in full on the program Web site (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017072342).

The protocol predefined the objectives, methods, principal focus (concept) and context, research question, and inclusion and exclusion criteria for this SR and meta-analysis, and described the search, data extraction, and data synthesis strategies. We conducted searches on September 26, 2016 and April 16, 2018 and identified studies published from 1997 to 2017 in the following 7 databases: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Search terms were “adolescent obesity” and “motivational interviewing” (see Supplemental Information for terms used and PubMed search).

For inclusion, studies were required to be published in the English language; to include adolescent participants (ages 12–19 at study enrollment) with overweight or obesity (BMI percentile ≥85%); to focus on an MI intervention targeting weight management; and to report at least 1 predetermined primary outcome (change in pounds, kilograms, BMI, BMI z score or percentile from baseline to last available follow-up) or secondary outcome (change in nutrition, physical activity, sleep behaviors, cardiometabolic outcomes, or quality of life). We excluded case studies, qualitative studies, editorials, and MI-based interventions focused on behavior change not directly related to weight management (eg, alcohol, substance, and condom use).

We used an SR citation–screening Web application, abstrackr,24 to manage the abstract screening process. Four authors independently participated in screening of titles, abstracts, and full-text articles identified through the searches against the protocol. The first author resolved conflicts between the screeners. Five of the articles included in the Cushing et al17 meta-analysis in which MI for adolescent health behaviors was evaluated met our inclusion criteria and were included in this SR.

Nine additional articles met the inclusion criteria during title and abstract screening. However, on full-text review, 2 of these articles had participants that were mostly outside of our target age range, and 7 contained examinations of outcomes other than our predefined primary or secondary outcomes of interest (see Fig 1).

FIGURE 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram for studies of MI for treating adolescents with overweight and obesity, 1997–2017.

FIGURE 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram for studies of MI for treating adolescents with overweight and obesity, 1997–2017.

Close modal

Two independent observers extracted information from each study and 2 authors checked data extraction for completeness and accuracy (see Table 1). When possible, we reported results only for adolescents 12 to 19 years of age when the study sample also included younger or older participants. If the mean participant age was less than age 12 years, we contacted authors for adolescent participant specific data.

TABLE 1

Characteristics of Included Studies of MI Interventions for Adolescents With Overweight or Obesity

StudyDesignParticipantsCountryIntervention CharacteristicsOutcomesMain Findings
SettingDescriptionDose
Ball et al25  RCT N = 46, aged 12–18 y; 61% girls; 85% white Canada Multidisciplinary pediatric wt management clinic MI training: 2 d in person; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: nutrition and PA education, self-monitoring, with the addition of MI and CBT; Control: wait list 16 45–60-min sessions; follow-up: 16–20 wk (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, BMI z score, BMI percentile, waist circumference), (2) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol, insulin, glucose), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA; pedometers, fitness, treadmill) No differences overall. Completers only had 3.9% and 6.5% decrease in BMI z score compared with 0.8% increase in control (P < .001) 
Brennan26  RCT N = 63, aged 11–19 y; 54% girls Australia Psychology clinics MI training: international training not described; MI fidelity: videotaped interviews coded, scores not reported; intervention: 12 CBT sessions that included nutrition and PA education, 1 CBT phone call, PI (sessions 1–7), with the addition of 1 MI session; control: wait list 1 60-min session; follow-up: 4–6 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, body fat, BMI, BMI z score, body circumference: hip, waist, upper arm, forearm); (2) fitness (cycle ergometer), metabolic rate (caloriometry); (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA, accelerometer) No differences overall 
Chahal et al27  RCT N = 32, aged 10–17; 38% girls Canada Pediatric outpatient clinic MI training: 2, 3-d in person; MI fidelity: MI Network of Trainers and clinical psychologist provided ongoing feedback, random audio recordings coding indicating high fidelity; intervention: nutrition and PA education to child-parent dyads; control: nutrition and PA education to child alone 4 30–45-min sessions plus 4 follow-up phone calls; follow-up: 6 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, waist circumference, wt-to-height ratio, BMI), (2) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-C, LDL-C, glucose, non–HDL-C, insulin, HOMA-IR), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA, accelerometer), (4) quality of life (self-reported) No differences in anthropometry or cardiometabolic. In favor of alone group in self-reported fats and/or sugars (P = .02) and screen time (P = .02); both groups had reductions in BMI (P < .001), waist circumference (P < .001), total cholesterol (P < .001), LDL-C (P < .001), triglycerides (P = .01), non–HDL-C (P < .001), insulin (P = .01), and HOMA-IR (P = .02) and improvements in dietary and/or PA and quality of life 
Christie et al28  RCT N = 174, aged 12–19 y; 63% girls England Local community settings MI training: 2 d in person plus 3 d training on obesity; MI fidelity: psychologist observed each provider deliver session 1, remaining sessions audio recorded and coded, 76% rated good; intervention: MI family (PI)-based nutrition and PA education with solution-focused behavior change approach; control: enhanced standard of care (Department of Health nutrition and PA education) 12 40–45-min sessions; follow-up: 6.5 and 13 mo; control: 1 60-min session (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, BMI z score, waist circumference, fat mass), (2) cardiometabolic (triglycerides, HDL-C, LDL-C, insulin, glucose), (3) behavioral (acceloerometry); (4) quality of life (self-reported), psychological health No differences overall 
Christison et al29 a Pre/post N = 18 of 100 total (18% aged 12–16 y); 55% girls; 55% white United States Pediatric primary care MI training: 2, 1.5 h in person; MI fidelity: 1 random encounter per provider, audio recording coded, scores not reported; intervention: MI-based coaching tool that included nutrition and PA education with goal setting with child-parent dyad 1 session; follow-up: 1 and 6 mo (1) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA), (2) anthropometry (BMI) No differences in anthropometrics. In favor of MI in reported dietary and/or PA goals overall (P < .001); 7 of 18 reported meeting goals most to almost always; patient motivation high in MI-adherent providers (P = .04). 
Davis et al30  RCT N = 38, aged 14–16 y; Latina girls United States Lifestyle intervention laboratory MI training: 1 in person plus 4 group trainings by MINT trainers, ongoing coaching; MI fidelity: subsample of audio recordings coded, global ratings met proficiency on average overall; intervention: PA circuit training (education, exercise) plus the addition of MI; control: wait list Circuit training: 2× per wk; circuit training plus 4 MI sessions; follow-up: 16 wk (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, BMI percentile, hip and waist circumference, body fat), (2) cardiometabolic (glucose, HOMA-IR), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA); fitness (treadmill) No differences overall. Circuit training with or without MI intervention groups compared with controls significantly increased cardiorespiratory fitness (15%, 16%, P = .03). 
Gourlan et al31  RCT N = 54, aged 11–18 y; 41% girls France Hospital MI training: 32 h in person, 40 h reading; MI fidelity: random audio recordings coded, scores above proficiency except 1 category; intervention: standard wt loss program (PA education) plus the addition of MI; control: standard wt loss program (PA education) Both groups received 2 30-min sessions; MI: 6 additional 20-min MI phone sessions; follow-up: 3 and 6 mo (1) behavioral (self-reported PA, accelerometer); (2) anthropometry (BMI) No differences overall. In favor of MI in BMI at 3 mo (−1 point, P < .001), no differences at 6 mo; greater PA length over time (∼0.25 and 0.5 h/d at 3 mo [P < .001] and 6 mo [P < .01]) and energy expenditure (∼10 and 25 kcal/d at 3 mo [P < .001] and 6 mo [P < .01]). 
Kong et al32  RCT N = 60, aged 13–16 y; 62% girls; 75% Hispanic United States 2 urban, school-based health centers MI training: 2 d in person; MI fidelity: 3 pilot MI sessions audio recorded, reviewed with trainers, coaching throughout, coding not reported; intervention: standard of care (nutrition and PA education) with MI-based sessions, parent telephone updates; control: standard of care (nutrition and PA education) 8 28-min (average) sessions; control: 1 47-min (average) visit, review medical results; follow-up: 7 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, BMI percentile, waist circumference), (2) cardiometabolic (glucose, HDL-C, triglycerides, insulin, HOMA-IR), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA, accelerometer) In favor of MI in BMI percentile (−0.3%, P = .04), waist circumference (0 cm, P = .04, control +1.7 cm), sedentary behaviors (television watching −0.4 h/d, P = .04) 
Love-Osbourne et al33  RCT N = 165, aged 14–17 y; 52% girls; 88% Hispanic United States 2 school-based health centers MI training: full d in person with 1 follow-up session; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: standard of care (physical examination, laboratory screening) with MI-based sessions with nutrition and PA education, weekly self-monitoring logs, text message reminders to random sample; control: standard of care (physical examination, laboratory screening) 1–8 sessions (mean = 5); follow-up: 6–8 mo (1) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol hemoglobin A1c, ALT), (2) anthropometry (BMI, BMI z score, BMI percentile), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA); fitness testing (endurance run) No differences overall 
MacDonnell et al34  RCT N = 44, aged 13–17 y; 79% girls, African American United States Urban adolescent medicine clinic MI training: 16 h in person plus weekly supervision; MI fidelity: audio recordings coded, scores not reported; intervention: MI-based counseling with nutrition and PA education with adolescent-parent dyads; control: nutrition education for adolescent-parent dyads 4 60-min sessions for both groups; follow-up: 3 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI); (2) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA) No differences in anthropometrics. In favor of MI self-reported fast food use per wk (−1.07 times per wk, P = .02), soft drink frequency per wk (−0.75 on 6-point Likert scale, P = .04), activity motivation (+7.79 on 1–7-point scale for 11 items, P = .03), but decreased activity 
Maggio et al35  Cohort N = 283, aged 3–17 y, (36% >12 y); 51% girls France Pediatric obesity care program MI training: 3 d (MI and CBT); MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: MI-based discussions with nutrition and PA education plus goal setting with child-parent dyads, psychological therapy for mental health problems as needed First session 1-h, follow-up sessions 30–45-min, 1–3 mo intervals between sessions, mean sessions 4.6; follow-up: mean 11.4 mo (1) anthropometry (BMI, BMI z scores) No differences overall 
Neumark-Sztainer et al36  RCT N = 356 girls, aged 14–16 y; >75% racial and/or ethnic minorities United States 12 urban high schools MI training: full d in person plus ongoing support; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: all girls’ PA (exercise) education class first school y semester plus MI-based counseling with nutrition education and self-empowerment over school y, lunch meetings, 6 postcards reinforcing curriculum mailed home to parents; control: all girls’ PA education class during first school y semester 5–7 sessions during physical education class; follow-up: 16 wk (1) anthropometry (BMI, percent of body fat); (2) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA) No differences in anthropometrics. In favor of MI in reported sedentary activity per d (−1.26 of 30-min blocks, P = .05), portion control (1.03, 1–5-point range, P = .01), unhealthy wt control behaviors (13.7%, P = .02), and body and/or self-image (body satisfaction 1.06, 5–20-point range, P = .04; self-worth 0.85, 5–20-point range, P = .03) 
Pakpour et al37  RCT N = 357, aged 14–18 y; 40% girls Iran Pediatric outpatient clinic MI training: 48–51 h in person; MI fidelity: random audio recordings coded, scores met proficiency for all but 1 category; intervention: MI-based counseling with nutrition and PA education with the addition of PI; control: passive control group MI groups: 6 weekly 40-min sessions, MI plus parent group received an additional 60-min session; follow-up: 12 mo (1) anthropometry (BMI, BMI z score, body fat, bioelectrical impedance, waist circumference), (2) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol, triglycerides), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA, accelerometer), (4) quality of life (self-reported) In favor of MI + PI in cholesterol (0.13 mmol/L, P = .02), triglycerides (0.16 mmol/L, P = .001), BMI (2.05, P = .01), and BMI z score (2.58, P = .02); PA (P = .001); self-reported dietary and PA measures significant for all but vegetables and milk; quality of life significant for all but social functioning and total score. In favor of MI plus parent versus MI (P = .05) 
Pollak et al38  Pre/post N = 30, ages 12–18 y; 63% girls, 27% white, 73% African American United States General pediatric, family practice primary care MI training: online learning modules; MI fidelity: audio recordings coded, scores indicated low-to-moderate proficiency; intervention: MI-based discussions with nutrition and PA education 1 session, mean 6.0 min; follow-up: 1 mo (1) anthropometry (wt), (2) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA) When physicians had a higher MI spirit score, patients reported reduced subjective wt (P = .02). 
Resnicow et al13  RCT N = 147, aged 12–16 y; African American girls United States Churches MI training: 16 h plus ongoing supervision; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: high-intensity weekly group behavioral sessions with exercise, nutrition and PA education, MI-based telephone calls, 2-way pagers with reminder messages; control: moderate-intensity monthly sessions with nutrition and PA education High intensity: 24–26 sessions, parents participated in ∼12, plus 4–6 20–30-min telephone calls; moderate intensity control: 6 sessions, parents participated in ∼3; follow-up: 6 and 12 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, waist and hip circumference, body fat), (2) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol, glucose, insulin), (3) fitness (20-m shuttle run) No differences overall. Girls who attended >3 quarters of the sessions had significantly lower BMI (P = .01) in the high-intensity group. 
Tucker et al39 a Quasi- experimental N = 130, aged 4–18 y (33% aged 12–18); 44% girls, 80% white United States Pediatric clinic MI training: 3 d; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: child-parent dyads, standard care (review BMI at well-child visit) plus MI sessions with nutrition and PA education, phone sessions; control: standard care (review BMI at well-child visit) 1 30-min (average) session, 4 weekly phone sessions; 1- and 6-mo session, periodic phone sessions; follow-up: 12 mo (1) anthropometry (BMI, BMI percentile), (2) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA) No differences in anthropometrics. In favor of MI in self-reported fruit and/or vegetable intake (P < .001), PA (P = .004), and screen time (P = .035). 
Walpole et al40  RCT N = 40, aged 10–18 y, 57% girls, 65% white Canada Pediatric outpatient clinic MI training: in person by MINT trainer, ongoing supervision; MI fidelity: feedback of audio recordings, subsample coded, met proficiency on several categories; intervention: MI-based counseling with nutrition and PA education; control: education on social skills 6 30-min (average) sessions; follow-up: 6 mo (1) anthropometry (BMI, BMI z score, waist circumference) No differences overall. MI group attended more sessions (P = .054). Self-efficacy improved (P = .004) in both groups over time. 
StudyDesignParticipantsCountryIntervention CharacteristicsOutcomesMain Findings
SettingDescriptionDose
Ball et al25  RCT N = 46, aged 12–18 y; 61% girls; 85% white Canada Multidisciplinary pediatric wt management clinic MI training: 2 d in person; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: nutrition and PA education, self-monitoring, with the addition of MI and CBT; Control: wait list 16 45–60-min sessions; follow-up: 16–20 wk (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, BMI z score, BMI percentile, waist circumference), (2) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol, insulin, glucose), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA; pedometers, fitness, treadmill) No differences overall. Completers only had 3.9% and 6.5% decrease in BMI z score compared with 0.8% increase in control (P < .001) 
Brennan26  RCT N = 63, aged 11–19 y; 54% girls Australia Psychology clinics MI training: international training not described; MI fidelity: videotaped interviews coded, scores not reported; intervention: 12 CBT sessions that included nutrition and PA education, 1 CBT phone call, PI (sessions 1–7), with the addition of 1 MI session; control: wait list 1 60-min session; follow-up: 4–6 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, body fat, BMI, BMI z score, body circumference: hip, waist, upper arm, forearm); (2) fitness (cycle ergometer), metabolic rate (caloriometry); (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA, accelerometer) No differences overall 
Chahal et al27  RCT N = 32, aged 10–17; 38% girls Canada Pediatric outpatient clinic MI training: 2, 3-d in person; MI fidelity: MI Network of Trainers and clinical psychologist provided ongoing feedback, random audio recordings coding indicating high fidelity; intervention: nutrition and PA education to child-parent dyads; control: nutrition and PA education to child alone 4 30–45-min sessions plus 4 follow-up phone calls; follow-up: 6 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, waist circumference, wt-to-height ratio, BMI), (2) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-C, LDL-C, glucose, non–HDL-C, insulin, HOMA-IR), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA, accelerometer), (4) quality of life (self-reported) No differences in anthropometry or cardiometabolic. In favor of alone group in self-reported fats and/or sugars (P = .02) and screen time (P = .02); both groups had reductions in BMI (P < .001), waist circumference (P < .001), total cholesterol (P < .001), LDL-C (P < .001), triglycerides (P = .01), non–HDL-C (P < .001), insulin (P = .01), and HOMA-IR (P = .02) and improvements in dietary and/or PA and quality of life 
Christie et al28  RCT N = 174, aged 12–19 y; 63% girls England Local community settings MI training: 2 d in person plus 3 d training on obesity; MI fidelity: psychologist observed each provider deliver session 1, remaining sessions audio recorded and coded, 76% rated good; intervention: MI family (PI)-based nutrition and PA education with solution-focused behavior change approach; control: enhanced standard of care (Department of Health nutrition and PA education) 12 40–45-min sessions; follow-up: 6.5 and 13 mo; control: 1 60-min session (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, BMI z score, waist circumference, fat mass), (2) cardiometabolic (triglycerides, HDL-C, LDL-C, insulin, glucose), (3) behavioral (acceloerometry); (4) quality of life (self-reported), psychological health No differences overall 
Christison et al29 a Pre/post N = 18 of 100 total (18% aged 12–16 y); 55% girls; 55% white United States Pediatric primary care MI training: 2, 1.5 h in person; MI fidelity: 1 random encounter per provider, audio recording coded, scores not reported; intervention: MI-based coaching tool that included nutrition and PA education with goal setting with child-parent dyad 1 session; follow-up: 1 and 6 mo (1) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA), (2) anthropometry (BMI) No differences in anthropometrics. In favor of MI in reported dietary and/or PA goals overall (P < .001); 7 of 18 reported meeting goals most to almost always; patient motivation high in MI-adherent providers (P = .04). 
Davis et al30  RCT N = 38, aged 14–16 y; Latina girls United States Lifestyle intervention laboratory MI training: 1 in person plus 4 group trainings by MINT trainers, ongoing coaching; MI fidelity: subsample of audio recordings coded, global ratings met proficiency on average overall; intervention: PA circuit training (education, exercise) plus the addition of MI; control: wait list Circuit training: 2× per wk; circuit training plus 4 MI sessions; follow-up: 16 wk (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, BMI percentile, hip and waist circumference, body fat), (2) cardiometabolic (glucose, HOMA-IR), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA); fitness (treadmill) No differences overall. Circuit training with or without MI intervention groups compared with controls significantly increased cardiorespiratory fitness (15%, 16%, P = .03). 
Gourlan et al31  RCT N = 54, aged 11–18 y; 41% girls France Hospital MI training: 32 h in person, 40 h reading; MI fidelity: random audio recordings coded, scores above proficiency except 1 category; intervention: standard wt loss program (PA education) plus the addition of MI; control: standard wt loss program (PA education) Both groups received 2 30-min sessions; MI: 6 additional 20-min MI phone sessions; follow-up: 3 and 6 mo (1) behavioral (self-reported PA, accelerometer); (2) anthropometry (BMI) No differences overall. In favor of MI in BMI at 3 mo (−1 point, P < .001), no differences at 6 mo; greater PA length over time (∼0.25 and 0.5 h/d at 3 mo [P < .001] and 6 mo [P < .01]) and energy expenditure (∼10 and 25 kcal/d at 3 mo [P < .001] and 6 mo [P < .01]). 
Kong et al32  RCT N = 60, aged 13–16 y; 62% girls; 75% Hispanic United States 2 urban, school-based health centers MI training: 2 d in person; MI fidelity: 3 pilot MI sessions audio recorded, reviewed with trainers, coaching throughout, coding not reported; intervention: standard of care (nutrition and PA education) with MI-based sessions, parent telephone updates; control: standard of care (nutrition and PA education) 8 28-min (average) sessions; control: 1 47-min (average) visit, review medical results; follow-up: 7 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, BMI percentile, waist circumference), (2) cardiometabolic (glucose, HDL-C, triglycerides, insulin, HOMA-IR), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA, accelerometer) In favor of MI in BMI percentile (−0.3%, P = .04), waist circumference (0 cm, P = .04, control +1.7 cm), sedentary behaviors (television watching −0.4 h/d, P = .04) 
Love-Osbourne et al33  RCT N = 165, aged 14–17 y; 52% girls; 88% Hispanic United States 2 school-based health centers MI training: full d in person with 1 follow-up session; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: standard of care (physical examination, laboratory screening) with MI-based sessions with nutrition and PA education, weekly self-monitoring logs, text message reminders to random sample; control: standard of care (physical examination, laboratory screening) 1–8 sessions (mean = 5); follow-up: 6–8 mo (1) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol hemoglobin A1c, ALT), (2) anthropometry (BMI, BMI z score, BMI percentile), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA); fitness testing (endurance run) No differences overall 
MacDonnell et al34  RCT N = 44, aged 13–17 y; 79% girls, African American United States Urban adolescent medicine clinic MI training: 16 h in person plus weekly supervision; MI fidelity: audio recordings coded, scores not reported; intervention: MI-based counseling with nutrition and PA education with adolescent-parent dyads; control: nutrition education for adolescent-parent dyads 4 60-min sessions for both groups; follow-up: 3 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI); (2) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA) No differences in anthropometrics. In favor of MI self-reported fast food use per wk (−1.07 times per wk, P = .02), soft drink frequency per wk (−0.75 on 6-point Likert scale, P = .04), activity motivation (+7.79 on 1–7-point scale for 11 items, P = .03), but decreased activity 
Maggio et al35  Cohort N = 283, aged 3–17 y, (36% >12 y); 51% girls France Pediatric obesity care program MI training: 3 d (MI and CBT); MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: MI-based discussions with nutrition and PA education plus goal setting with child-parent dyads, psychological therapy for mental health problems as needed First session 1-h, follow-up sessions 30–45-min, 1–3 mo intervals between sessions, mean sessions 4.6; follow-up: mean 11.4 mo (1) anthropometry (BMI, BMI z scores) No differences overall 
Neumark-Sztainer et al36  RCT N = 356 girls, aged 14–16 y; >75% racial and/or ethnic minorities United States 12 urban high schools MI training: full d in person plus ongoing support; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: all girls’ PA (exercise) education class first school y semester plus MI-based counseling with nutrition education and self-empowerment over school y, lunch meetings, 6 postcards reinforcing curriculum mailed home to parents; control: all girls’ PA education class during first school y semester 5–7 sessions during physical education class; follow-up: 16 wk (1) anthropometry (BMI, percent of body fat); (2) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA) No differences in anthropometrics. In favor of MI in reported sedentary activity per d (−1.26 of 30-min blocks, P = .05), portion control (1.03, 1–5-point range, P = .01), unhealthy wt control behaviors (13.7%, P = .02), and body and/or self-image (body satisfaction 1.06, 5–20-point range, P = .04; self-worth 0.85, 5–20-point range, P = .03) 
Pakpour et al37  RCT N = 357, aged 14–18 y; 40% girls Iran Pediatric outpatient clinic MI training: 48–51 h in person; MI fidelity: random audio recordings coded, scores met proficiency for all but 1 category; intervention: MI-based counseling with nutrition and PA education with the addition of PI; control: passive control group MI groups: 6 weekly 40-min sessions, MI plus parent group received an additional 60-min session; follow-up: 12 mo (1) anthropometry (BMI, BMI z score, body fat, bioelectrical impedance, waist circumference), (2) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol, triglycerides), (3) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA, accelerometer), (4) quality of life (self-reported) In favor of MI + PI in cholesterol (0.13 mmol/L, P = .02), triglycerides (0.16 mmol/L, P = .001), BMI (2.05, P = .01), and BMI z score (2.58, P = .02); PA (P = .001); self-reported dietary and PA measures significant for all but vegetables and milk; quality of life significant for all but social functioning and total score. In favor of MI plus parent versus MI (P = .05) 
Pollak et al38  Pre/post N = 30, ages 12–18 y; 63% girls, 27% white, 73% African American United States General pediatric, family practice primary care MI training: online learning modules; MI fidelity: audio recordings coded, scores indicated low-to-moderate proficiency; intervention: MI-based discussions with nutrition and PA education 1 session, mean 6.0 min; follow-up: 1 mo (1) anthropometry (wt), (2) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA) When physicians had a higher MI spirit score, patients reported reduced subjective wt (P = .02). 
Resnicow et al13  RCT N = 147, aged 12–16 y; African American girls United States Churches MI training: 16 h plus ongoing supervision; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: high-intensity weekly group behavioral sessions with exercise, nutrition and PA education, MI-based telephone calls, 2-way pagers with reminder messages; control: moderate-intensity monthly sessions with nutrition and PA education High intensity: 24–26 sessions, parents participated in ∼12, plus 4–6 20–30-min telephone calls; moderate intensity control: 6 sessions, parents participated in ∼3; follow-up: 6 and 12 mo (1) anthropometry (wt, BMI, waist and hip circumference, body fat), (2) cardiometabolic (total cholesterol, glucose, insulin), (3) fitness (20-m shuttle run) No differences overall. Girls who attended >3 quarters of the sessions had significantly lower BMI (P = .01) in the high-intensity group. 
Tucker et al39 a Quasi- experimental N = 130, aged 4–18 y (33% aged 12–18); 44% girls, 80% white United States Pediatric clinic MI training: 3 d; MI fidelity: not reported; intervention: child-parent dyads, standard care (review BMI at well-child visit) plus MI sessions with nutrition and PA education, phone sessions; control: standard care (review BMI at well-child visit) 1 30-min (average) session, 4 weekly phone sessions; 1- and 6-mo session, periodic phone sessions; follow-up: 12 mo (1) anthropometry (BMI, BMI percentile), (2) behavioral (self-reported dietary and/or PA) No differences in anthropometrics. In favor of MI in self-reported fruit and/or vegetable intake (P < .001), PA (P = .004), and screen time (P = .035). 
Walpole et al40  RCT N = 40, aged 10–18 y, 57% girls, 65% white Canada Pediatric outpatient clinic MI training: in person by MINT trainer, ongoing supervision; MI fidelity: feedback of audio recordings, subsample coded, met proficiency on several categories; intervention: MI-based counseling with nutrition and PA education; control: education on social skills 6 30-min (average) sessions; follow-up: 6 mo (1) anthropometry (BMI, BMI z score, waist circumference) No differences overall. MI group attended more sessions (P = .054). Self-efficacy improved (P = .004) in both groups over time. 

ALT, alanine aminotransferase; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; MINT, motivational interviewing network of trainers; PA, physical activity; PI, parent involvement.

a

Adolescent-specific data received from author.

We used Review Manager (RevMan),41 the Cochrane Collaboration’s software for preparing SRs and meta-analyses, to organize, manage, and analyze the data using an inverse-variance statistical method. We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)42 software (GRADEpro) to rate the quality of the evidence for outcomes as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.43 For each outcome, 2 authors independently extracted data and cross-checked against the data that were entered in RevMan. Throughout the article selection process, data abstraction, computation, calculation, evaluation, and synthesis process, 2 authors resolved disagreements through joint examination of the articles and discussion until consensus was reached.

We used The Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool43 for assessing risk of bias in RevMan41 to assess included studies across 7 domains. We included randomized and nonrandomized studies in the risk of bias assessment and extracted data regarding each domain. Two authors rated each domain as being high, low, or unclear risk of bias using criteria indicated by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.43 We used the following rules for judging risk of bias for incomplete outcome data for each individual study: the final sample dipped below the sample size calculation, imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data between groups, loss to follow-up >20%,44,45 or substantially different rates in attrition between groups.43 

We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro tool,42 which considers within-study risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity, precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias. We imported data from RevMan41 into GRADEpro.42 Two authors independently rated the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome across the included studies and then produced a “Summary of Findings” table (see Table 2) using the GRADE Handbook42 criteria. When CIs included or crossed 0, we conducted calculations for comparison groups for each outcome using *GPower Sample Size Calculator46 to determine optimal information size47 using a 1-sided α of .05 and power of .80. The actual means and SDs from the meta-analysis of each outcome were used to calculate effect sizes, which ranged from 0.01 to 0.27. Two authors conducted and cross-checked calculations.

TABLE 2

Summary of Findings Comparing MI, No MI in Adolescents With Overweight or Obesity

OutcomesFollow-up moParticipants (Studies)Quality of Evidence (GRADE)I2 StatisticReasons for Downgradinga,bEffect Estimatec MD (95% CI)
BMI 3–13 1185 (10 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 31% (P = .16) Imprecision −0.27 (−0.98 to 0.44) 
Moderate 
BMI percentile 4–7 72 (2 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 0% (P = .46) Imprecision −1.07% (−3.63 to 1.48) 
Moderate 
BMI z score 4–13 628 (6 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 47% (P = .09) Imprecision −0.00 (−0.09 to 0.09) 
Moderate 
Waist circumference 4–13 633 (7 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 0% (P = .45) Imprecision 0.56 cm (−1.07 to 2.19) 
Moderate 
Glucose (fasting) 6–13 290 (3 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 17% (P = .30) Imprecision 0.11 mmol/L (0.01 to 0.21) 
Moderate 
Triglycerides (fasting) 7–13 401 (3 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ 77% (P = .01) Imprecision, Inconsistency 0.00 mmol/L (−0.31 to 0.31) 
Low 
Total cholesterol (fasting) 6–12 356 (2 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 0% (P = .39) Imprecision 0.01 mmol/L (−0.17 to 0.18) 
Moderate 
Insulin (fasting) 6–13 291 (3 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 18% (P = .30) Imprecision 5.24 pmol/L (−13.63 to 24.10) 
Moderate 
OutcomesFollow-up moParticipants (Studies)Quality of Evidence (GRADE)I2 StatisticReasons for Downgradinga,bEffect Estimatec MD (95% CI)
BMI 3–13 1185 (10 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 31% (P = .16) Imprecision −0.27 (−0.98 to 0.44) 
Moderate 
BMI percentile 4–7 72 (2 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 0% (P = .46) Imprecision −1.07% (−3.63 to 1.48) 
Moderate 
BMI z score 4–13 628 (6 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 47% (P = .09) Imprecision −0.00 (−0.09 to 0.09) 
Moderate 
Waist circumference 4–13 633 (7 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 0% (P = .45) Imprecision 0.56 cm (−1.07 to 2.19) 
Moderate 
Glucose (fasting) 6–13 290 (3 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 17% (P = .30) Imprecision 0.11 mmol/L (0.01 to 0.21) 
Moderate 
Triglycerides (fasting) 7–13 401 (3 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ 77% (P = .01) Imprecision, Inconsistency 0.00 mmol/L (−0.31 to 0.31) 
Low 
Total cholesterol (fasting) 6–12 356 (2 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 0% (P = .39) Imprecision 0.01 mmol/L (−0.17 to 0.18) 
Moderate 
Insulin (fasting) 6–13 291 (3 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ 18% (P = .30) Imprecision 5.24 pmol/L (−13.63 to 24.10) 
Moderate 
a

High risk of bias due to lack of blinding; less crucial in objective outcome measurements. Potential limitations unlikely lower the confidence in estimate of effect. No serious limitation; do not downgrade.

b

Participant age range included adolescent populations. When mean participant age was <12 y, authors were contacted for direct adolescent specific data. Greater percentage of girls than boys overall. No serious limitation; do not downgrade.

c

Inverse-variance statistical method using a fixed or random (when I2 >50%) effects analysis model with an MD effect measure produced by RevMan.

When there was >1 follow-up period reported, we selected the point with the greatest improvement in outcome measurements. When >1 arm in the intervention using MI existed, we selected the intervention arm that had the greatest improvement in outcome measurements.

For consistency in measurement outcomes, 2 authors converted and cross-checked measurement units to the American Medical Association preferred units of measurements where needed.48 For studies missing required data elements, we e-mailed authors a request for the missing data, sent a second e-mail, and e-mailed a coauthor when needed. When possible, for studies where data were not available or authors did not respond to requests, we computed SDs from the available data using formulas and methods recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for handling missing continuous data instead of omitting the study.49 Two authors conducted the computations and cross-checked for consistency.

Assessment of Heterogeneity

To investigate statistical heterogeneity, we used a fixed-effects model in RevMan41 and produced Forest plots with the I2 statistic. Forest plots provide visual variability in point estimates of the effect size and CIs; I2 quantifies the percentage of the variability in effect estimates due to heterogeneity rather than to sampling error (chance).50 A significant Q (Cochran Q = χ2) with P < .05 or I2 value >50% suggests substantial heterogeneity.43 If heterogeneity was present, we performed a random effects analysis, which equally weighs all included studies to account for between study variance due to sample size differences.51 

Assessment of Reporting Biases

To investigate reporting bias, we used Funnel plots produced by RevMan41 software, which provide visual scatter plots of the effect estimates against the study’s size. In the absence of bias and between study heterogeneity, the scatter will be due to sampling variation and the plot will resemble a symmetrical inverted funnel.51 Heterogeneity, reporting bias, and chance may lead to asymmetry.51 

Data Synthesis

We reported outcomes from all 17 studies as an SR to synthesize the data and only included RCTs in the meta-analysis per the Cochrane Handbook, section 13.1.2.43 We excluded 6 studies from the meta-analysis. Four were nonrandomized studies; 1 RCT did not have follow-up mean or SD values that are necessary for meta-analysis, and we were unable to get these values or additional information from the authors to compute mean and SD values; and 1 RCT did not have a non-MI control group. Sufficient data were available for meta-analysis across 11 studies; we conducted meta-analyses using RevMan41 to produce overall estimated pooled treatment effects as relative effect estimates and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for each outcome. We included the following outcomes in the meta-analysis: BMI, BMI percentile, BMI z score, waist circumference, fasting glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, and insulin. An MD was appropriate for this review because RCTs contained reports of outcomes as continuous data from standard measurement scales. Health behavior and quality of life outcomes are reported only as a qualitative synthesis.

Sensitivity Analysis

We performed a sensitivity analysis as set forth by the Cochrane Handbook, section 9.7.43 We requested, received, and included our eligibility age range (ages 12–19 at study enrollment) data in the analysis. Only 1 study that met inclusion criteria was included in SR; this study was excluded from the meta-analysis because of missing data that could not be computed or imputed, but the study did not contain reports of effects on weight-related outcomes. We undertook the entire meta-analysis twice for all outcomes using a fixed-effect model followed by a random effects model, and the overall results were not affected.

Our electronic search yielded 1545 records through database searching and an additional 169 records through review of citations and hand searching. After we removed duplicates, there were 1336 abstracts. The first round of double screening excluded 1310 records on the basis of title and abstract. We identified 26 full-text articles for additional review and determined that 17 studies met the inclusion criteria for this SR, including 13 RCTs and 4 other types of studies (1 quasi-experimental, 1 cohort, and 2 pre and post). Eleven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis (see Fig 1). Full details of the included studies are provided in Table 1.

All 17 studies examined anthropometrics, and only 3 reported significant effects on BMI,31,37 BMI percentile,32 BMI z score,37 and waist circumference32; 1 of these studies did not have lasting effects by the final follow-up period at 6 months.31 Seven studies examined cardiometabolic outcome measures, and only 1 reported significant decreases for total cholesterol and triglycerides that were not clinically relevant.37 Fourteen studies examined physical activity. Three studies reported significant effects on self-reported sedentary behaviors32,36,39; 2 reported contained reports of significant effects on physical activity duration,31,37 energy expenditure,31,37 and self-reported activity measures37,39; and 1 reported significant effects on fitness.30 Out of the 11 studies that examined self-reported dietary habits, 4 studies reported significant effects,34,36,37,39 and 1 study reported overall success in meeting diet and physical activity behavior goals.29 Three studies evaluated quality of life outcomes, and 1 reported significant effects on self-reported school functioning, emotional functioning, physical health, and psychosocial health.27,28,37 All 17 studies were focused on lifestyle changes and incorporated general education on nutrition and/or physical activity into the core MI-based intervention sessions. Fifteen studies included both didactic nutrition and physical activity education, with 2 of those also adding an exercise class component. Two studies were focused on didactic physical activity education, with 1 of those also adding an exercise class component. Three of the 16 studies augmented MI with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and 11 studies involved parents. Nine of the 16 studies reported significant improvements in nutrition and/or physical activity habits.

Overall, there was high variability in the number of MI sessions included in the interventions. The majority of the studies had relatively short-term follow-up periods, and the biggest outcome improvements tended to occur in studies with follow-up periods that were 6 months or less. Reported improvements were primarily in nutrition and physical activity behaviors versus anthropometric or cardiometabolic outcomes.

Risk of bias assessments are presented for each domain as percentages across all 17 studies in the SR (see Fig 2) and for each study (see Fig 3). Overall, risk of biases common to the majority of the included studies were related to lack of blinding of participants, personnel, and those assessing outcomes. In addition, approximately half of the studies were assessed as being at high risk for bias related to allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Overall, the risk of publication bias was deemed low; funnel plots produced for each relevant outcome from the 11 RCTs included in the meta-analysis (see Supplemental Information for Fig 4) appear to be fairly symmetrical, although smaller studies tend to have larger effect sizes.

FIGURE 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

FIGURE 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Close modal
FIGURE 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

FIGURE 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Close modal
FIGURE 4

Panels A–H. A, BMI. B, BMI percentile. C, BMI z score. D, Waist circumference. E, Glucose. F, Triglycerides. G, Total cholesterol. H, Insulin.

FIGURE 4

Panels A–H. A, BMI. B, BMI percentile. C, BMI z score. D, Waist circumference. E, Glucose. F, Triglycerides. G, Total cholesterol. H, Insulin.

Close modal

We included 11 total RCTs in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1245 participants, follow-up duration of 3 to 13 months, 1 to 16 intervention sessions, and study sample sizes of 32 to 357 participants (see Table 1). Participants were predominantly female sex. Overall, there was evidence of heterogeneity for only 1 cardiometabolic outcome out of 8 outcomes that were examined (triglycerides, I2 = 77%, P = .01).

The results of the meta-analyses are presented in Table 2 (see Supplemental Information for Figs 512). We found nonsignificant average reductions in BMI and BMI percentile. There were no discernible effects on BMI z score, waist circumference, glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, or insulin. The optimal information size necessary for detecting a statistically significant MD was not met for any outcome. Dose response gradients or plausible confounders were not detected on the basis of criteria set forth by the GRADE Handbook.42 

FIGURE 5

BMI (kg/m2). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

FIGURE 5

BMI (kg/m2). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

Close modal
FIGURE 6

BMI percentile. df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

FIGURE 6

BMI percentile. df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

Close modal
FIGURE 7

BMI z score. df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

FIGURE 7

BMI z score. df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

Close modal
FIGURE 8

Waist circumference (cm). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

FIGURE 8

Waist circumference (cm). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

Close modal
FIGURE 9

Glucose (mmol/L). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

FIGURE 9

Glucose (mmol/L). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

Close modal
FIGURE 10

Triglycerides (mmol/L). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

FIGURE 10

Triglycerides (mmol/L). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

Close modal
FIGURE 11

Total cholesterol (mmol/L). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

FIGURE 11

Total cholesterol (mmol/L). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

Close modal
FIGURE 12

Insulin (pmol/L). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

FIGURE 12

Insulin (pmol/L). df, degree of freedom; IV, inverse variance.

Close modal

Although most of the studies reported MI training for providers, training efforts were highly variable, ranging from online learning modules to 3 full days of direct training. The majority of the studies did not discuss ongoing coaching or supervision. Ten studies specified that Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding was done; coding indicated that providers delivering the MI intervention inconsistently met levels of MI proficiency across studies.

The main finding of this SR and meta-analysis on the use of MI to treat adolescents with overweight and obesity are nonsignificant reductions in some anthropometric outcomes, no discernable effects on cardiometabolic outcomes, and some qualitative evidence of positive effects on nutrition and physical activity behaviors and quality of life. Even pooling participants across studies, there was an issue with achieving adequate power for any of our primary outcomes, which must be considered as a viable explanation for the predominantly negative findings in the meta-analysis. Overall, the quality of evidence from the studies was rated predominantly moderate, indicating moderate confidence that the outcome estimate effects are near the true value across studies.43 In addition, sensitivity analysis indicated the results of the analysis can be regarded with a relatively high degree of certainty.

Our findings are somewhat in contrast with those of Cushing et al,17 in part because of different approaches to examining the data. Cushing et al17 found a small, significant positive effect size on health behaviors overall in adolescents (g = 0.16, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.27)17 using Hedges’ g calculation to determine an overall effect size for each study, and then aggregating those overall effect sizes across studies. Thus, their overall finding encompasses the effect of MI on several outcomes, including anthropometry, cardiometabolic outcomes, risky sexual behavior, repeat birth, sleep, dietary and physical activity behaviors, and asthma symptoms. Their findings for specific outcomes examined in this review, such as anthropometry, were fairly consistent with ours, with the weighted mean effect sizes for studies containing examinations of anthropometric outcomes hovering at ∼0 (g = −0.10 to 0.07).17 We felt that it was important to specifically examine the impact of MI on clinically relevant outcomes like weight status and cardiometabolic indicators because these factors are generally most closely associated with poor long-term health outcomes.

Our findings also contradict another recent SR, whose authors indicated that multifaceted interventions, including family support and guided behavior modifications, seem effective for reducing BMI in adolescents with overweight and obesity.52 However, the authors included all weight loss interventions and did not exclusively examine MI interventions. Similar to our SR, there was considerable variability in effectiveness between interventions.

Bean et al53 argued that examining the effects of MI on outcomes beyond weight and cardiometabolic outcomes can increase understanding of the mechanisms of treatment effects. We found that there was some evidence that MI may help to improve diet and physical activity behaviors and quality of life in adolescents. However, we could not conduct separate meta-analyses for these outcomes because of variation in outcome measures across studies and limited quality of life outcome data. Many of the studies reported significant improvements in nutrition and physical activity behaviors, and of the 3 studies that evaluated quality of life, 1 reported even greater effects when parent involvement was added to MI compared with MI alone. MI may help adolescents engage effectively with other treatments that more directly affect nutrition and physical activity behaviors and quality of life.54,55 This fits with the basic philosophy that MI primarily improves the collaborative relationship between the provider and client to build motivation to change.20 

Most of the studies in the current SR included ≤6 MI sessions and managed patients for <1 year. It is likely that more ongoing contact may be necessary to impact anthropometric and cardiometabolic outcomes. The USPSTF2 found that at least 26 contact hours per year seemed to be the threshold necessary to promote weight loss in the context of behavioral interventions for pediatric patients; none of the studies included in this review met this threshold. It is likely that intensive, ongoing support is necessary to address fluctuations in motivation and adherence and metabolic and physiologic energy-balance adaptations that often frustrate long-term weight loss and maintenance efforts.56 

Finally, many of the studies in the current SR did not assess treatment fidelity and used provider training models that may not provide adequate support for implementing MI. Concerns regarding MI treatment fidelity are salient, given evidence that training workshops alone do not typically result in enduring changes in practice57 and that MI skill fluctuates between providers and over time.21,58 According to an SR by Hall et al,59 in the absence of supervision and ongoing training after initial training, the majority of clinicians are unlikely to achieve beginning efficiency in MI. Moreover, comfort with MI may not be achieved until at least 3 months, even with ongoing use and coaching,58 and proficiency and skill may not be achieved until 6 to 12 months.60,61 Given the relatively short duration of many of the studies in the current SR, it is possible that many of the providers delivering the MI intervention may not have achieved proficiency and skill. This was reflected in variable findings related to provider MI proficiency in studies in which MITI coding was conducted.

Results of this SR and meta-analysis should be interpreted in the context of the limitations. Overall, there was a range of evidence quality, with fairly small sample sizes and risks of bias related to lack of blinding of participants, personnel, and those assessing outcomes, allocation concealment, and incomplete outcome data. Other reviewers might reach different conclusions about the risks of bias and strength of the evidence on the basis of their own judgements. However, we applied stringent criteria in grading the evidence and have aimed for transparency regarding the judgements that we reached. In addition, women were overrepresented in the studies that were included, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results. Finally, none of the included studies met the USPSTF-recommended 26 contact hour threshold for behavioral interventions for weight management in pediatric patients.

There is little indication in this SR and meta-analysis that MI impacts anthropometric and cardiometabolic outcomes in adolescents with overweight and obesity. This finding may reflect a true lack of effect, or it may be related to issues with inadequate power or treatment dose, delivery, or duration. Future studies should attempt to address these shortcomings. There is some evidence that MI, especially in conjunction with other supportive interventions, may positively impact nutrition and physical activity behaviors and quality of life outcomes. Standardization of nutrition and physical activity measures across interventions, as well as more routine measurement of quality of life, would facilitate a future meta-analysis on these outcomes. The full applicability of MI for weight management in adolescents is yet to be determined. However, the results of this SR and meta-analysis are applicable in clinical practice in that MI may effectively promote adolescent engagement and positive behavior changes, especially when used with complementary interventions.

     
  • CBT

    cognitive behavioral therapy

  •  
  • CI

    confidence interval

  •  
  • GRADE

    Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation

  •  
  • MD

    mean difference

  •  
  • MI

    motivational interviewing

  •  
  • RCT

    randomized controlled trial

  •  
  • RevMan

    Review Manager

  •  
  • SR

    systematic review

  •  
  • USPSTF

    US Preventive Services Task Force

Dr Vallabhan conceptualized and designed the study, collected data, conducted the data analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed the final manuscript; Dr Jimenez conceptualized and designed the study, supervised data collection and analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed the final manuscript; Mr Nash conceptualized and designed the study, collected data, drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed the final manuscript; Drs Feldstein-Ewing and Kong conceptualized and designed the study and critically reviewed the final manuscript; Drs Gonzales-Pacheco, Coakley, Noe, DeBlieck, and Summers collected data and critically reviewed the final manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

This trial has been registered with PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) (identifier CRD42017072342).

FUNDING: Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award R01HL118734 and supplement grant 3R01HL118734-03S1 (Principal Investigator Dr Kong). Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2018-2471.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We thank Daveer Menchaca, medical student, Alyssa Mirabel, medical student, Nadine Montoya, dietetic intern, Christina Fallows, dietetic intern, and Jessica Hammond, dietetic intern for their assistance in the data extraction process.

1
World Health Organization
. Report of the commission on ending childhood obesity. 2016. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/204176/1/9789241510066_eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed October 20, 2017
2
Grossman
DC
,
Bibbins-Domingo
K
,
Curry
SJ
, et al;
US Preventive Services Task Force
.
Screening for obesity in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
JAMA
.
2017
;
317
(
23
):
2417
2426
[PubMed]
3
Cook
MB
,
Freedman
ND
,
Gamborg
M
,
Sørensen
TI
,
Baker
JL
.
Childhood body mass index in relation to future risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Br J Cancer
.
2015
;
112
(
3
):
601
607
[PubMed]
4
Reilly
JJ
,
Kelly
J
.
Long-term impact of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence on morbidity and premature mortality in adulthood: systematic review.
Int J Obes
.
2011
;
35
(
7
):
891
898
[PubMed]
5
Twig
G
,
Yaniv
G
,
Levine
H
, et al
.
Body-mass index in 2.3 million adolescents and cardiovascular death in adulthood.
N Engl J Med
.
2016
;
374
(
25
):
2430
2440
[PubMed]
6
Wang
LY
,
Chyen
D
,
Lee
S
,
Lowry
R
.
The association between body mass index in adolescence and obesity in adulthood.
J Adolesc Health
.
2008
;
42
(
5
):
512
518
[PubMed]
7
Miller
WR
,
Rollnick
S
.
Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change
. 3rd ed.
New York, NY
:
Guilford Press
;
2013
8
Sanci
L
,
Chondros
P
,
Sawyer
S
, et al
.
Responding to young people’s health risks in primary care: a cluster randomised trial of training clinicians in screening and motivational interviewing.
PLoS One
.
2015
;
10
(
9
):
e0137581
[PubMed]
9
Spear
BA
,
Barlow
SE
,
Ervin
C
, et al
.
Recommendations for treatment of child and adolescent overweight and obesity.
Pediatrics
.
2007
;
120
(
suppl 4
):
S254
S288
[PubMed]
10
Feldstein Ewing
SW
,
Wray
AM
,
Mead
HK
,
Adams
SK
.
Two approaches to tailoring treatment for cultural minority adolescents.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2012
;
43
(
2
):
190
203
[PubMed]
11
Hettema
J
,
Steele
J
,
Miller
WR
.
Motivational interviewing.
Annu Rev Clin Psychol
.
2005
;
1
:
91
111
[PubMed]
12
Chien
WT
,
Mui
JH
,
Cheung
EF
,
Gray
R
.
Effects of motivational interviewing-based adherence therapy for schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a randomized controlled trial.
Trials
.
2015
;
16
:
270
[PubMed]
13
Resnicow
K
,
McMaster
F
,
Bocian
A
, et al
.
Motivational interviewing and dietary counseling for obesity in primary care: an RCT.
Pediatrics
.
2015
;
135
(
4
):
649
657
[PubMed]
14
Miller
WR
,
Rose
GS
.
Toward a theory of motivational interviewing.
Am Psychol
.
2009
;
64
(
6
):
527
537
[PubMed]
15
Lundahl
B
,
Moleni
T
,
Burke
BL
, et al
.
Motivational interviewing in medical care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Patient Educ Couns
.
2013
;
93
(
2
):
157
168
[PubMed]
16
Barnes
RD
,
Ivezaj
V
.
A systematic review of motivational interviewing for weight loss among adults in primary care.
Obes Rev
.
2015
;
16
(
4
):
304
318
[PubMed]
17
Cushing
CC
,
Jensen
CD
,
Miller
MB
,
Leffingwell
TR
.
Meta-analysis of motivational interviewing for adolescent health behavior: efficacy beyond substance use.
J Consult Clin Psychol
.
2014
;
82
(
6
):
1212
1218
[PubMed]
18
Jensen
CD
,
Cushing
CC
,
Aylward
BS
,
Craig
JT
,
Sorell
DM
,
Steele
RG
.
Effectiveness of motivational interviewing interventions for adolescent substance use behavior change: a meta-analytic review.
J Consult Clin Psychol
.
2011
;
79
(
4
):
433
440
[PubMed]
19
Lundahl
B
,
Burke
BL
.
The effectiveness and applicability of motivational interviewing: a practice-friendly review of four meta-analyses.
J Clin Psychol
.
2009
;
65
(
11
):
1232
1245
[PubMed]
20
Lundahl
BW
,
Kunz
C
,
Brownell
C
,
Tollefson
D
,
Burke
BL
.
A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: twenty-five years of empirical studies.
Res Soc Work Pract
.
2010
;
20
(
2
):
137
160
21
McCambridge
J
,
Day
M
,
Thomas
BA
,
Strang
J
.
Fidelity to motivational interviewing and subsequent cannabis cessation among adolescents.
Addict Behav
.
2011
;
36
(
7
):
749
754
[PubMed]
22
Miller
WR
,
Rollnick
S
.
The effectiveness and ineffectiveness of complex behavioral interventions: impact of treatment fidelity.
Contemp Clin Trials
.
2014
;
37
(
2
):
234
241
[PubMed]
23
Gayes
LA
,
Steele
RG
.
A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing interventions for pediatric health behavior change.
J Consult Clin Psychol
.
2014
;
82
(
3
):
521
535
[PubMed]
24
Wallace
BC
,
Small
K
,
Brodley
CE
,
Lau
J
,
Trikalinos
TA
. Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center. 2012. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d297/2fa779c91162f447d1e15540fba0df4cb547.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2016
25
Ball
GD
,
Mackenzie-Rife
KA
,
Newton
MS
, et al
.
One-on-one lifestyle coaching for managing adolescent obesity: Findings from a pilot, randomized controlled trial in a real-world, clinical setting.
Paediatr Child Health
.
2011
;
16
(
6
):
345
350
[PubMed]
26
Brennan
L
.
Does motivational interviewing improve retention or outcome in cognitive behaviour therapy for overweight and obese adolescents?
.
Obes Res Clin Pract
.
2016
;
10
(
4
):
481
486
[PubMed]
27
Chahal
N
,
Rush
J
,
Manlhiot
C
,
Boydell
KM
,
Jelen
A
,
McCrindle
BW
.
Dyslipidemia management in overweight or obese adolescents: a mixed-methods clinical trial of motivational interviewing.
SAGE Open Med
.
2017
;
5
:
2050312117707152
[PubMed]
28
Christie
D
,
Hudson
LD
,
Kinra
S
, et al
.
A community-based motivational personalised lifestyle intervention to reduce BMI in obese adolescents: results from the Healthy Eating and Lifestyle Programme (HELP) randomised controlled trial.
Arch Dis Child
.
2017
;
102
(
8
):
695
701
[PubMed]
29
Christison
AL
,
Daley
BM
,
Asche
CV
, et al
.
Pairing motivational interviewing with a nutrition and physical activity assessment and counseling tool in pediatric clinical practice: a pilot study.
Child Obes
.
2014
;
10
(
5
):
432
441
[PubMed]
30
Davis
JN
,
Gyllenhammer
LE
,
Vanni
AA
, et al
.
Startup circuit training program reduces metabolic risk in Latino adolescents.
Med Sci Sports Exerc
.
2011
;
43
(
11
):
2195
2203
[PubMed]
31
Gourlan
M
,
Sarrazin
P
,
Trouilloud
D
.
Motivational interviewing as a way to promote physical activity in obese adolescents: a randomised-controlled trial using self-determination theory as an explanatory framework.
Psychol Health
.
2013
;
28
(
11
):
1265
1286
[PubMed]
32
Kong
AS
,
Sussman
AL
,
Yahne
C
,
Skipper
BJ
,
Burge
MR
,
Davis
SM
.
School-based health center intervention improves body mass index in overweight and obese adolescents.
J Obes
.
2013
;
2013
:
575016
33
Love-Osborne
K
,
Fortune
R
,
Sheeder
J
,
Federico
S
,
Haemer
MA
.
School-based health center-based treatment for obese adolescents: feasibility and body mass index effects.
Child Obes
.
2014
;
10
(
5
):
424
431
[PubMed]
34
Macdonell
K
,
Brogan
K
,
Naar-King
S
,
Ellis
D
,
Marshall
S
.
A pilot study of motivational interviewing targeting weight-related behaviors in overweight or obese African American adolescents.
J Adolesc Health
.
2012
;
50
(
2
):
201
203
[PubMed]
35
Maggio
AB
,
Saunders Gasser
C
,
Gal-Duding
C
, et al
.
BMI changes in children and adolescents attending a specialized childhood obesity center: a cohort study.
BMC Pediatr
.
2013
;
13
(
1
):
216
[PubMed]
36
Neumark-Sztainer
DR
,
Friend
SE
,
Flattum
CF
, et al
.
New moves-preventing weight-related problems in adolescent girls a group-randomized study.
Am J Prev Med
.
2010
;
39
(
5
):
421
432
[PubMed]
37
Pakpour
AH
,
Gellert
P
,
Dombrowski
SU
,
Fridlund
B
.
Motivational interviewing with parents for obesity: an RCT.
Pediatrics
.
2015
;
135
(
3
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/135/3/e644
[PubMed]
38
Pollak
KI
,
Alexander
SC
,
Østbye
T
, et al
.
Primary care physicians’ discussions of weight-related topics with overweight and obese adolescents: results from the Teen CHAT Pilot study.
J Adolesc Health
.
2009
;
45
(
2
):
205
207
[PubMed]
39
Tucker
SJ
,
Ytterberg
KL
,
Lenoch
LM
, et al
.
Reducing pediatric overweight: nurse-delivered motivational interviewing in primary care.
J Pediatr Nurs
.
2013
;
28
(
6
):
536
547
[PubMed]
40
Walpole
B
,
Dettmer
E
,
Morrongiello
BA
,
McCrindle
BW
,
Hamilton
J
.
Motivational interviewing to enhance self-efficacy and promote weight loss in overweight and obese adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.
J Pediatr Psychol
.
2013
;
38
(
9
):
944
953
[PubMed]
41
Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 5.3
.
Copenhagen, Denmark
:
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration
;
2014
42
GRADE Working Group
. GRADE Handbook. 2013. Available at: http://gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html. Accessed December 4, 2016
43
Cochrane Training
. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0.
2011
. Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed September 5, 2016
44
Dumville
JC
,
Torgerson
DJ
,
Hewitt
CE
.
Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials.
BMJ
.
2006
;
332
(
7547
):
969
971
[PubMed]
45
Fergusson
D
,
Aaron
SD
,
Guyatt
G
,
Hébert
P
.
Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis.
BMJ
.
2002
;
325
(
7365
):
652
654
[PubMed]
46
Faul
F
,
Erdfelder
E
,
Buchner
A
,
Lang
AG
.
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.
Behav Res Methods
.
2009
;
41
(
4
):
1149
1160
[PubMed]
47
Pogue
JM
,
Yusuf
S
.
Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis.
Control Clin Trials
.
1997
;
18
(
6
):
580
593; discussion 661–666
48
Fontanarosa
PB
,
Christiansen
S
;
AMA Manual of Style Committee
. Laboratory values. 2007. Available at: www.amamanualofstyle.com/view/10.1093/jama/9780195176339.001.0001/med-9780195176339-div2-498. Accessed September 24, 2018
49
Fu
R
,
Vandermeer
BW
,
Shamliyan
TA
, et al
. Handling continuous outcomes in quantitative synthesis. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154408/. Accessed September 24, 2018
50
Israel
H
,
Richter
RR
.
A guide to understanding meta-analysis.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
2011
;
41
(
7
):
496
504
[PubMed]
51
Simmonds
M
.
Quantifying the risk of error when interpreting funnel plots.
Syst Rev
.
2015
;
4
:
24
[PubMed]
52
Boff
RM
,
Liboni
RPA
,
Batista
IPA
,
de Souza
LH
,
Oliveira
MDS
.
Weight loss interventions for overweight and obese adolescents: a systematic review.
Eat Weight Disord
.
2017
;
22
(
2
):
211
229
[PubMed]
53
Bean
MK
,
Powell
P
,
Quinoy
A
,
Ingersoll
K
,
Wickham
EP
 III
,
Mazzeo
SE
.
Motivational interviewing targeting diet and physical activity improves adherence to paediatric obesity treatment: results from the MI values randomized controlled trial.
Pediatr Obes
.
2015
;
10
(
2
):
118
125
[PubMed]
54
Christie
D
,
Channon
S
.
The potential for motivational interviewing to improve outcomes in the management of diabetes and obesity in paediatric and adult populations: a clinical review.
Diabetes Obes Metab
.
2014
;
16
(
5
):
381
387
[PubMed]
55
Moyers
TB
,
Houck
J
.
Combining motivational interviewing with cognitive-behavioral treatments for substance abuse: lessons from the COMBINE research project.
Cognit Behav Pract
.
2011
;
18
(
1
):
38
45
56
Heymsfield
SB
,
Wadden
TA
.
Mechanisms, pathophysiology, and management of obesity.
N Engl J Med
.
2017
;
376
(
3
):
254
266
[PubMed]
57
Miller
WR
,
Mount
KA
.
A small study of training in motivational interviewing: does one workshop change clinician and client behavior?
Behav Cogn Psychother
.
2001
;
29
(
4
):
457
471
58
Vallabhan
MK
,
Kong
AS
,
Jimenez
EY
,
Summers
LC
,
DeBlieck
CJ
,
Feldstein Ewing
SW
.
Training primary care providers in the use of motivational interviewing for youth behavior change.
Res Theory Nurs Pract
.
2017
;
31
(
3
):
219
232
[PubMed]
59
Hall
K
,
Staiger
PK
,
Simpson
A
,
Best
D
,
Lubman
DI
.
After 30 years of dissemination, have we achieved sustained practice change in motivational interviewing?
Addiction
.
2016
;
111
(
7
):
1144
1150
[PubMed]
60
Forsberg
L
,
Forsberg
LG
,
Lindqvist
H
,
Helgason
AR
.
Clinician acquisition and retention of motivational interviewing skills: a two-and-a-half-year exploratory study.
Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy
.
2010
;
5
:
8
[PubMed]
61
Martino
S
,
Canning-Ball
M
,
Carroll
KM
,
Rounsaville
BJ
.
A criterion-based stepwise approach for training counselors in motivational interviewing.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2011
;
40
(
4
):
357
365
[PubMed]

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Supplementary data