Impact of the motivational interviewing for childhood obesity treatment: The Obemat2.0 randomized clinical trial

Identifier:  imarina:9368042

Handle: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11797/imarina9368042

Authors:  Luque, Veronica; Feliu, Albert; Closa-Monasterolo, Ricardo; Munoz-Hernando, Judit; Ferre, Natalia; Gutierrez-Marin, Desiree; Guillen, Nuria; Basora, Josep; Hsu, Pablo; Alegret-Basora, Clara; Serrano, M angels; Mallafre, Marta; Alejos, Ana M; Balcells, Eva N; Boada, Angels; Paixa, Sandra; Mimbrero, Gisela; Gil-Mancha, Susana; Tudela-Valls, Carol; Alcazar, Mireia; Escribano, Joaquin

Abstract:
Background and ObjectiveThe aim was assessing a short training for healthcare providers on patient-focused counselling to treat childhood obesity in primary care, along with dietitian-led workshops and educational materials.MethodsRandomized clustered trial conducted with paediatrician-nurse pairs (Basic Care Units [BCU]) in primary care centres from Tarragona (Spain). BCUs were randomized to intervention (MI) (motivational interview, dietitian-led education, and educational materials) or control group (SC, standard care). Participants were 8-14-year-old children with obesity, undergoing 1-11 monthly treatment visits during 1 year at primary care centres. The primary outcome was BMI z-score reduction.ResultsThe study included 44 clusters (23 MI). Out of 303 allocated children, 201 (n = 106 MI) completed baseline, final visits, and at least one treatment visit and were included in the analysis. BMI z-score reduction was -0.27 (+/- 0.31) in SC, versus -0.36 (+/- 0.35) in MI (p = 0.036). Mixed models with centres as random effects showed greater reductions in BMI in MI than SC; differences were B = -0.11 (95% CI: -0.20, -0.01, p = 0.025) for BMI z-score, and B = -2.06 (95% CI: -3.89, -0.23, p = 0.028) for BMI %. No severe adverse events related to the study were notified.ResultsThe study included 44 clusters (23 MI). Out of 303 allocated children, 201 (n = 106 MI) completed baseline, final visits, and at least one treatment visit and were included in the analysis. BMI z-score reduction was -0.27 (+/- 0.31) in SC, versus -0.36 (+/- 0.35) in MI (p = 0.036). Mixed models with centres as random effects showed greater reductions in BMI in MI than SC; differences were B = -0.11 (95% CI: -0.20, -0.01, p = 0.025) for BMI z-score, and B = -2.06 (95% CI: -3.89, -0.23, p = 0.028) for BMI %. No severe adverse events related to the study were notified.ConclusionTraining primary care professionals on motivational interviewing supported by dietitians and educational materials, enhanced the efficacy of childhood obesity therapy.