Motivational interviewing (MI) is a patient-centred approach to behaviour change that was originally developed in the addiction field but has increasingly been applied to public health settings with a focus on health promotion. The purpose of this review was to examine the evidence base for MI interventions in primary care settings with non-clinical populations to achieve behaviour change for physical activity, dietary behaviours and/or alcohol intake. We also sought to explore the specific behaviour change techniques included in MI interventions within primary care. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles and 33 papers met inclusion criteria and were included. Approximately 50% of the included studies (n = 18) demonstrated positive effects in relation to health behaviour change. The efficacy of MI approaches is unclear given the inconsistency of MI descriptions and intervention components. Furthermore, research designs that do not isolate the effects of MI make it difficult to determine the effectiveness of such approaches. We offer a number of recommendations for researchers and practitioners seeking to include MI within behaviour change interventions to help improve the quality of the research and the effectiveness of MI-based interventions within primary care settings.

Despite similar overall recovery kinetics, [Formula: see text] and PPO show differences in key model parameters. Moreover, the recovery of PPO does not appear to be affected by aerobic fitness.

Background: Participant dropout reduces intervention effectiveness. Predicting dropout has been investigated for Exercise Referral Schemes (ERSs), but not physical activity (PA) interventions with Motivational Interviewing (MI). Methods: Data from attendees (n=619) to a community-based PA programme utilising MI techniques was analysed using chi-squared to determine dropout and attendance group differences. Binary logistic regression investigated the likelihood of dropout before 12-weeks. Results: 44.7% dropped out, with statistical (P<0.05) differences between groups for age, PA, and disability. Regression for each variable showed participants aged 61-70 years (OR=0.28, CI=0.09 to 0.79; P=0.018), >70 years (OR=0.30, CI=0.09 to 0.90; P=0.036), and HEPA (OR=0.40, CI=0.20 to 0.75; P=0.006) reduced dropout likelihood. Endocrine system disorders (OR=4.24, CI=1.19 to 19.43; P=0.036) and musculoskeletal disorders (OR=3.14, CI=1.84 to 5.45; P<0.001) increased dropout. Significant variables were combined in a single regression model. Dropout significantly reduced for 61-70 year olds (OR=0.31, CI=0.10 to 0.90; P=0.035), and HEPA (OR=0.39, CI=0.19 to 0.76; P=0.008). Musculoskeletal disorders increased dropout (OR=2.67, CI=1.53 to 4.75; P<0.001). Conclusions: Age, PA, and disability type significantly influence dropout at 12-weeks, the first results specific to MI based programmes indicating the inclusion of MI and highlight the need for further research.

Background: Brief advice is recommended to increase physical activity (PA) within primary care. This study assessed change in PA levels and mental wellbeing after a motivational interviewing (MI) community-based PA intervention and the impact of signposting [SP] and Social Action [SA] (i.e. weekly group support) pathways. Methods: Participants (n=2084) took part in a community-based, primary care PA programme using MI techniques. Self-reported PA and mental wellbeing data were collected at baseline (following an initial 30-minute MI appointment), 12-weeks, six-months, and 12-months. Participants were assigned based upon the surgery they attended to the SP or SA pathway. Multilevel models were used to derive point estimates and 95%CIs for outcomes at each time point and change scores. Results: Participants increased PA and mental wellbeing at each follow-up time point through both participant pathways and with little difference between pathways. Retention was similar between pathways at 12-weeks, but the SP pathway retained more participants at six-months and 12-months. Conclusions: Both pathways produced similar improvements in PA and mental wellbeing, suggesting the effectiveness of MI based PA interventions. However, due to lower resources required yet similar effects, SP pathways are recommended over SA to support PA in primary care settings.

The aims of this study were to evaluate perceptions of postexercise recovery and to compare patterns of perceived recovery with those of several potential mediating physiological variables. Seventeen well-trained men (age: 22 ± 4 years; height: 1.83 ± 0.05 m; body mass: 78.9 ± 7.6 kg; and body fat: 11.1 ± 2.2%) completed 10 sprint trials on an electromagnetically braked cycle ergometer. Trial 1 evaluated peak power via a 5-second sprint. The remaining trials evaluated (a) the recovery of peak power after a maximal 30-second sprint using rest intervals of 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 seconds; (b) perceived recovery via visual analog scales; and (c) physiological responses during recovery. The time point in recovery at which individuals perceived they had fully recovered was 163.3 ± 57.5 seconds. Power output at that same time point was 83.6 ± 5.2% of peak power. There were no significant differences between perceived recovery and the recovery processes of VO2 or minute ventilation (V(E)). Despite differences in the time courses of perceived recovery and the recovery of power output, individuals were able to closely predict full recovery without the need for external timepieces. Moreover, the time course of perceived recovery is similar to that of VO2 and V(E).