Summary Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method of intervention focused on enhancing intrinsic motivation and behaviour change. A previous review of the literature and meta-analyses support the effectiveness of MI for weight loss. None of these studies, however, focused on the bourgeoning literature examining MI for weight loss among adults within primary care settings, which confers unique barriers to providing weight loss treatment. Further, the current review includes 19 studies not included in previous reviews or meta-analyses. We conducted a comprehensive review of PubMed, MI review papers, and citations from relevant papers. A total of 24 adult randomized controlled trials were identified. MI interventions typically were provided individually by a range of clinicians and compared with usual care. Few studies provided adequate information regarding MI treatment fidelity. Nine studies (37.5%) reported significant weight loss at post-treatment assessment for the MI condition compared with control groups. Thirteen studies (54.2%) reported MI patients achieving at least 5% loss of initial body weight. There is potential for MI to help primary care patients lose weight. Conclusions, however, must be drawn cautiously as more than half of the reviewed studies showed no significant weight loss compared with usual care and few reported MI treatment fidelity.

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) tested effectiveness of adaptive SMART steppedcare treatment to "standard" behavioral weight loss (BWL [standard]) for patients with binge-eating disorder (BED) and obesity. One hundred ninety-one patients were randomly assigned to 6 months of BWL (standard; n ϭ 39) or stepped care (n ϭ 152). Within stepped care, patients started with BWL for 1 month; treatment responders continued BWL, whereas nonresponders switched to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and patients receiving stepped care were additionally randomized to weight-loss medication or placebo (double-blind) for the remaining 5 months. Independent assessments were performed reliably at baseline, throughout treatment, and posttreatment. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses of remission rates (zero binges/month) revealed that BWL (standard) and stepped care did not differ (74.4% vs. 66.5%); within stepped care, remission rates ranged 40.0% to 83.3%, with medication significantly superior to placebo (overall) and among nonresponders switched to CBT. Mixed-models analyses of binge-eating frequency revealed significant time effects, but BWL (standard) and stepped care did not differ; within stepped care, medication was significantly superior to placebo and among nonresponders switched to CBT. Mixed models revealed significant weight loss, but BWL (standard; 5.1% weight-loss) and stepped care (5.8% weight-loss) did not differ; within stepped care (range ϭ 0.4% to 8.8% weight-loss), medication was significantly superior to placebo and among both responders continued on BWL and nonresponders switched to CBT. In summary, BWL (standard) and adaptive stepped-care treatments produced robust improvements in binge eating and weight loss in patients with BED/obesity. Within adaptive stepped care, weight-loss medication enhanced outcomes for BED/ obesity. Implications for clinical practice and future adaptive designs are offered.Editor's note. This article is part of a special issue, "Obesity: Psychological and Behavioral Aspects of a Modern Epidemic," published in the February-March, 2020 issue of American Psychologist. David B. Sarwer and Carlos M. Grilo served as editors of the special issue, with Anne E. Kazak as advisory editor.

Research has examined various aspects of the diagnostic criteria for binge-eating disorder (BED) but has yet to evaluate the DSM-5 severity criterion. This study examined the DSM-5 severity criterion for BED based on binge-eating frequency and tested an alternative severity specifier based on overvaluation of shape/weight. 338 community volunteers categorized with DSM-5 BED completed a battery of self-report instruments. Participants were categorized first using DSM-5 severity levels and second by shape/weight overvaluation and were compared on clinical variables. 264 (78.1%) participants were categorized as mild, 67 (19.8%) as moderate, 6 (1.8%) as severe, and 1 (0.3%) as extreme. Analyses comparing mild and moderate severity groups revealed no significant differences in demographic variables or BMI; moderate severity group had greater eating-disorder psychopathology (small effect-sizes) but not depression than mild group. Participants with overvaluation (N=196; 60.1%) versus without (N=130; 39.9%) did not differ significantly in age, sex, BMI, or binge-eating frequency. Overvaluation group had significantly greater eating-disorder psychopathology and depression than non-overvaluation group. The greater eating-disorder and depression levels (medium-to-large effect-sizes) persisted after adjusting for ethnicity/race and binge-eating severity/frequency, without attenuation of effect-sizes. Findings from this non-clinical community sample provide support for overvaluation of shape/weight as a specifier for BED as it provides stronger information about severity than the DSM-5 rating based on binge-eating. Future research should include treatment-seeking patients with BED to test the utility of DSM-5 severity specifiers and include broader clinical validators.

Objective This study tested the new DSM-5 severity criterion for binge eating disorder (BED) based on frequency of binge-eating in a clinical sample. This study also tested overvaluation of shape/weight as an alternative severity specifier. Method Participants were 834 treatment-seeking adults diagnosed with DSM-5 BED using semistructured diagnostic and eating-disorder interviews. Participants sub-grouped based on DSM-5 severity levels and on overvaluation of shape/weight were compared on demographic and clinical variables. Results Based on DSM-5 severity definitions, 331 (39.7%) participants were categorized as mild, 395 (47.5%) as moderate, 83 (10.0%) as severe, and 25 (3.0%) as extreme. Analyses comparing three (mild, moderate, and severe/extreme) severity groups revealed no significant differences in demographic variables or body mass index (BMI). Analyses revealed significantly higher eating-disorder psychopathology in the severe/extreme than moderate and mild groups and higher depression in moderate and severe/extreme groups than the mild group; effect sizes were small. Participants characterized with overvaluation (N = 449; 54%) versus without overvaluation (N = 384; 46%) did not differ significantly in age, sex, BMI, or binge-eating frequency, but had significantly greater eating-disorder psychopathology and depression. The robustly greater eating-disorder psychopathology and depression levels (medium-to-large effect sizes) in the overvaluation group was observed without attenuation of effect sizes after adjusting for ethnicity/race and binge-eating severity/frequency. Conclusions Our findings provide support for overvaluation of shape/weight as a severity specifier for BED as it provides stronger information about the severity of homogeneous groupings of patients than the DSM-5 rating based on binge-eating.

No abstract