Table 2.

Study Outcomes

Source	Study Design	Participants	Motivational Interviewing Intervention	Dose	Comparison Group(s)	Health Screening Outcome	Findings	Quality Rating
MI improves health screening, RCT
Outlaw et al. (2010)	RCT	African American men who have sex with men	Field outreach + MI Face-to-face MI field outreach session	One face-to- face 30-minute field outreach session	Traditional field outreach Field outreach session (e.g., education about HIV)	HIV counseling and testing	Participants in the field outreach + MI group were more likely to receive HIV counseling and testing (49%) compared to participants in the traditional field outreach group (20%) (chi squared=17.94; P=.000)	6
Valanis et al. (2002) Valanis et al. (2003)	RCT	Women overdue for a mammogram and a pap smear	Outreach intervention group Mailed tailored letter addressing barriers to screening Participants who did not complete both screening tests after 6 months also received an MI telephone call Inreach intervention group Face-to-face MI session at the time of a primary care appointment Combined intervention group Both inreach and outreach interventions	Outreach One mailed letter One 15-minute telephone call Inreach One 20-minute, face-to-face session	Control group Usual Care	Mammogram and Pap Smear	< 64 years old Compared to the control group, participants in the outreach intervention group were more likely to receive both a mammogram and a pap smear at 14 months (OR=4.24, 95% CI = 2.22– 8.34) and 24 months (OR 2.53; 95% CI 1.40–4.63) There were no differences between the inreach intervention group and the control group There were no differences between the combined intervention group and the control group > 65 years old No significant differences between interventions groups and the control group	5
aManne et al. (2010)	RCT	First degree relatives of patients with melanoma who were non- adherent with skin cancer prevention behaviors	Tailored intervention Three tailored educational mailings and one tailored MI counseling call	One telephone call Average time = 30.2 minutes	Generic intervention Three generic educational mailings and a generic educational call	Total cutaneous skin examination by a health provider (TCE), Skin self- examination (SSE)	Compared to the generic intervention, participants in the tailored intervention group were 1.94 times more likely to have a total cutaneous skin examination (OR = 1.94; 95% C.I. 1.39,2.72) Participants in the tailored arm were not more likely to perform skin self- examination	5
Masson et. al (2013)	RCT	Men enrolled in a methadone maintenance treatment program	Intervention group On site screening for HIV and hepatitis MI enhanced education and counseling Vaccinations and MI enhanced case- management	2 counseling sessions (pretest and posttest) 6 months of case management	Control group Non-MI pretest and posttest counseling HIV and Hepatitis testing Off-site referral for vaccine and hepatitis evaluation	Attendance of an HCV evaluation 286 participants required an HCV evaluation on based on serological testing	Participants in the intervention group were more likely to receive an HCV evaluation compared to participants in the control group (65.1% vs 37.2%, OR = 4.10; 95% CI = 2.35, 7.17)	5
Fortuna et. al (2013)	RCT	Individuals overdue for CRC screening Women overdue for breast cancer screening	Letter + personal call A mailed letter A telephone call that used MI principles	One telephone call	Comparison group Letter A mailed letter Other intervention groups Letter + Audiodial A mailed letter Up to five automated telephone calls Letter + Audiodial + prompt A mailed letter Up to five automated calls Participants and physicians also received paper prompts at a scheduled appointment to discuss cancer screening	Mammography or CRC screening	Compared to a letter alone, the letter + personal call group was more effective at improving screening rates for breast cancer (17.8% v 27.5 % AOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2–4.0) and CRC (12.2% vs. 21.5%; AOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1–3.9) Participants in the letter + personal call group who received an MI call (reached) were more likely to receive a screening than those who were unable to be reached (30.9% v 20.2%, p=0.05)	5
Alemagno et al. (2009)	RCT	Criminal justice involved clients	Brief negotiation interview MI based brief negotiation interviewing session using a “talking laptop” computer	One 20-minute computerized intervention	Control group Written educational materials on HIV, STD, TB and hepatitis	HIV testing	Participants in the brief negotiation interview group (34.6%) were significantly more likely to have an HIV test than participants in the control group (13.6%) (chi-square = 8.4, df = 2, p = .004)	2
MI improves health screening, single arm
Costanza et al. (2009)	Single arm trial	Women overdue for a mammogram ≥27months	Computer-assisted telephone interviewing with MI Mailed educational booklet Telephone computer- assisted tailored counseling and MI session Assistance scheduling a mammogram	Not reported	None	Mammogram	Of the 45 participants, 26 (57.8%, 95% CI=43.3, 72.0) of the participants received a mammogram	2
Foley et al. (2005)	Single arm trial	Substance users in a residential treatment program	Intervention Group HIV prevention educational presentation Individual MI session	One 60-minute educational, group presentation One 30-minute face-to-face intervention	None	HIV testing	78% of participants (105/134) received HIV testing	1
MI does not add additional benefit to active control
Taplin et al. (2000)	RCT	Women who had not scheduled a recommended mammography	Motivational call MI telephone call	One telephone call Average time = 8.5 minutes	Reminder Postcard Postcard that reminded participants about the recommended mammography Reminder Telephone Call Telephone call that reminded participants about the mammography and assisted in scheduling the appointments	Mammogram	Participants in the motivational call group were more likely to receive a mammogram than participants in the reminder postcard group (OR=1.8 95% CI 1/5-2.2) Participants in the reminder telephone call group were more likely to receive a mammogram than participants in the reminder postcard group (OR=1.9, 95% CI 1.5,2.3) No statistical differences between the motivational interviewing telephone call group and the reminder call group	6
aManne et al. (2009)	RCT	Individuals who were overdue for a CRC screening and had a sibling diagnosed with CRC	Tailored print plus telephone counseling group Mailed personal cover letter and tailored booklet MI telephone counseling session Follow up tailored newsletter	One telephone call Average time = 19 minutes	Generic print group Mailed cover letter and generic pamphlet about CRC screening Tailored print group Mailed personal cover letter and tailored booklet about CRC screening One tailored follow up newsletter	CRC screening	Participants in the tailored print plus telephone counseling group were significantly more likely to be screened than those in the generic print group (Wald Chi-Square=4.40; p =0.036) Participants in the tailored print group were more likely to be screened than those in the generic print group (Wald Chi- Square=6.15; p=0.013) No significant differences between the two tailored intervention groups	5
MI does not improve health screening, RCT
Chacko et al. (2010)	RCT	Adolescent women attending a community- based, urban clinic that provided free reproductive health care	Intervention + standard care MI intervention Clinical care and risk reduction counseling	One 30–50 minute baseline session One 30–50 minute two week follow up session One 15-minute six month follow up session	Standard care Clinical care and risk reduction counseling	STI screening	No significant differences between study groups	6
Menon et al. (2011)	RCT	Primary care patients who had no family history of CRC and were non- adherent with CRC screening	Motivational Interviewing Telephone-based MI session	One telephone call Average time = 21.2 minutes	Tailored Counseling Tailored scripted telephone intervention Control Group Possible referral for a CRC screening	CRC screening	No significant differences between the MI group and the control group (OR=1.6, 95% C.I. 0.9,2.9) Participants in the tailored counseling group were 2.2 times more likely to receive a CRC screening than participants in the control group (OR=2.2; 95% C.I. 1.2, 4.00)	5
Costanza et al. (2007)	RCT	Primary care patients who had not had a colonoscopy within the past 10 years	Intervention Mailed educational brochure on CRC and screening Computer-assisted counseling telephone call Participants who were not planning on getting tested (N=97) were offered MI counseling	One telephone call Average time of MI component = 6 minutes	Control group Usual care	Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing	There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups Of those participants who were offered MI, 19.5% changed their screening intentions (N=19/97)	4

Acronym Key:

RCT = Randomized Control/Clinical Trial

MI = Motivational Interview

CRC = Colorectal Cancer

STD = Sexually Transmitted Disease

TB = Tuberculosis

TCE = Total Cutaneous Skin Examination

SSE = Skin Self-Examination

HCV = Hepatitis C Virus

STI = Sexually Transmitted Infection

Note:

^aArticle selected due to the authors’ familiarity with the research.