DISCUSSION
disorders including psychiatric, asthma, diabetes
ASTHMA, DIABETES
In this study, we investigated the effect of motivational interviewing on adherence and self‐efficacy in adolescents with uncontrolled asthma. The findings showed that there were statistically significant differences between the experimental and control group in the mean of adherence and self‐efficacy scores at 2 weeks and 3 months after the intervention. In motivational interviewing, health information is shared in a manner that increases the chance that a patient hears, understands and finally accepts the information. This can be done using clear and understandable language and reflections empathizing with and reducing the patient's concerns. The motivational interviewing uses the ‘encouragement and threat process’ to provide patients’ feedback about their own health (Borrelli et al., Reviewing the literatures, we found that although several studies have been done about the effect of motivational interviewing on the adherence and behavioural changes of patients with disorders including psychiatric, blood pressure and diabetes (Ellingson et al., Miller & Rose mentioned that the theory of motivational interviewing emphasizes two active components underlying the change process in motivational interviewing which can lead to strengthen self‐efficacy. A relational component related to empathy and interpersonal morale and a technical component that involves motivating and empowering the clients, discussion changes (expressions of their desire, ability, reasons and need for change). In addition to therapist attitudes considered for motivational interviewing style and consistency (unconditional positive attention, acceptance, empathy, genuine interest and intimacy, avoidance of coercion), some specific techniques such as strategies to elicit and enhance self‐efficacy have also been considered (Miller & Rose, The result of a recent study by Barikani et al. to investigate the effect of motivational interviewing on self‐efficacy, beliefs about medicines and medication adherence among adolescents with asthma, that was conducted on 52 adolescents with asthma in 2021 showed that the difference between the mean scores in medication adherence, beliefs about medicines and self‐efficacy in the post‐test between the two groups were significant, which is consistent with the results of our study (Barikani et al., Riekert et al. in 2011 investigated the effect of motivational interviewing on adherence of 37 adolescents with asthma (aged 10–15 years old) and their caregivers, and showed that the motivational interviewing increased the motivation of adolescents for treatment, but no significant difference was found in the drug adherence score of the adolescents which is not consistent with the present study. However, in our study, therapeutic adherence was examined and not drug adherence (Riekert et al., 