↓ Skip to main content

The MOTIV-HEART Study: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind Pilot Study of Brief Strategic Therapy and Motivational Interviewing among Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The MOTIV-HEART Study: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind Pilot Study of Brief Strategic Therapy and Motivational Interviewing among Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00083
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giada Pietrabissa, Gian Mauro Manzoni, Alessandro Rossi, Gianluca Castelnuovo

Abstract

Background: Psychological distress, biomedical parameters, and unhealthy lifestyles contribute to a poorer prognosis for cardiac disease. Public health's challenge is to motivate patients to utilize self-care. Objective: This prospective, randomized, single-blind pilot study aimed at testing the incremental efficacy of Brief Strategic Therapy (BST) combined with Motivational Interviewing (MI) in improving selected biomedical and psychological outcomes over and beyond those of the stand-alone BST in a residential Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) program. Method: Fourty-two inpatients (17 females), enrolled in a 1-month CR program, were randomly allocated into two conditions: (a) Three sessions of BST and (b) Three sessions of BST plus MI. Data were collected at baseline, discharge, and after 3 months through phone interviews. Results: At discharge, no significant between-group difference was found in any outcome variable. Changes from pre- to post-treatment within each condition showed significant improvements only in the BST group, where the level of external regulation diminished, and both the participants' self-regulation (Relative Autonomous Motivation Index, RAI) and willingness to change improved. At the 3-month follow-up, within-group analyses on responders (BST = 9; BST + MI = 11) showed a statistically significant improvement in the level of systolic blood pressure in both groups. Discussion: Findings showed no evidence of the incremental efficacy of combining BST and MI over and beyond BST alone on either selected biomedical or psychological outcomes among CR patients. Conclusions: Ends and limitations from the present pilot study should be considered and addressed in future investigations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 24%
Psychology 13 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 18 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,923,993
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,958
of 30,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,656
of 420,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#235
of 464 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 420,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 464 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.