Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), mostly conducted among minority populations, have reported that motivational interviewing (MI) can improve medication adherence.
To evaluate the impact of MI and of the MI delivery format, fidelity assessment, fidelity-based feedback, counselors' background and MI exposure time on adherence.
We searched the MEDLINE database for studies published from 1966 until February 2015.
We included RCTs that compared MI to a control group and reported a numerical measure of medication adherence.
The main outcome was medication adherence defined as any subjective or objective measure reported as the proportion of subjects with adequate adherence or mean adherence and standard deviation. For categorical variables we calculated the relative risk (RR) of medication adherence, and for continuous variables we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) between the MI and control groups.
We included 17 RCTs. Ten targeted adherence to HAART. For studies reporting a categorical measure (n = 11), the pooled RR for medication adherence was higher for MI compared with control (1.17; 95 % CI 1.05- 1.31; p < 0.01). For studies reporting a continuous measure (n = 11), the pooled SMD for medication adherence was positive (0.70; 95 % CI 0.15-1.25; p < 0.01) for MI compared with control. The characteristics that were significantly (p < 0.05) associated with medication adherence were telephonic MI and fidelity-based feedback among studies reporting categorical measures, group MI and fidelity assessment among studies reporting continuous measures and delivery by nurses or research assistants. Effect sizes differed in magnitude, creating high heterogeneity.
MI improves medication adherence at different exposure times and counselors' educational level. However, the evaluation of MI characteristics associated with success had inconsistent results. Larger studies targeting diverse populations with a variety of chronic conditions are needed to clarify the effect of different MI delivery modes, fidelity assessment and provision of fidelity based-feedback.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
23
6%
Social Sciences
12
3%
Other
40
10%
Unknown
161
42%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 471. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2025.
All research outputs
#71,417
of 33,738,238 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#70
of 9,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,183
of 335,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,738,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,885 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,507 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
