Motivational interviewing to promote interconception health: A scoping review of evidence from clinical trials.

This is a scoping review, not a meta-analysis, and the trials were too heterogeneous to combine into one effect estimate. The review did not assess trial quality, effect sizes, or the clinical value of the primary outcomes. It classified a trial as improved if any primary outcome reached statistical significance, so trials with multiple primary outcomes could be counted as successful even if other outcomes did not improve. Many trials combined motivational interviewing with other services such as cognitive behavioral therapy, depression screening, education, or group coaching, so the effect of motivational interviewing alone cannot be isolated. Several included trials were pilots or failed to reach planned enrollment, so some negative results may reflect low power. The review excluded non-English literature and unpublished reports, which may have biased it toward studies with positive results. It could not assess fidelity for computer-delivered motivational interviewing because standards for training and fidelity monitoring were lacking. It did not examine secondary outcomes consistently, and some trials showed improvements only in secondary outcomes.

The supplied metadata lists NIH extramural research support. No author conflict-of-interest declaration is included in the article text.

Do not conclude that motivational interviewing reliably improves interconception health outcomes. Only 19 of 37 trials showed any primary-outcome improvement, many added other components, and the review could not combine effect sizes.