The results of the present study showed that triple tests of mammography, breast clinical examination, and breast self-examination aimed at screening breast cancer were higher in women who received MI-based training than in women receiving the conventional training and this difference was statistically significant only in the breast self-examination dimension. Using motivational interviewing principles in the health promotion-training program among women in the general population as a strategy to increase their commitment to breast cancer screening tests led to an increase in the effectiveness of such training. However, some previous studies in Iran showed that although conventional training for promoting cancer-screening behaviors including breast and cervical cancers could increase the women’s awareness and sometimes their attitude, it did not have significant effects on their referral to healthcare centers for screening tests (
10,
31). The present study revealed that the adherence rate to mammography and breast clinical examination in the conventional training group was 15% and it was 50% for breast self-examination, which may be attributed to the fact that professional people are traditionally trying to encourage the patients through direct treatment recommendations and persuading the patients to change their behaviors. Although this method is helpful for some patients, it has been successful only in 5 to 10% of cases (
32). This is while person-centered approaches, such as motivational interviewing, create intrinsic motivation through the explanation and resolution of the ambivalence (
33). Hence, motivational interviewing has been more effective than traditional training and counseling in 75% of studies (
34). Considering that some women, including educated women, such as physicians, nurses, and teachers, may have good knowledge and information about the need for a breast cancer-screening program, they still show no appropriate and satisfactory adherence towards cancer screening, which may be attributed to the subjects’ resistance. Combining motivational interviewing with conventional training methods can lead to overcoming such resistance. Similarly, Wahab et al. (
35) investigated the effectiveness of telephone-based MI interventions on the individuals’ level of adherence to colon cancer-screening tests. The results showed an increase in the variety of colon cancer screening behaviors after the intervention, and participants stated that motivational counseling helped them to overcome their resistance to screening tests (
35). In a study on the effect of MI-based training on increasing the adherence to changing health behaviors, Holstad et al. (
36) showed that the group MI-based training increased the adherence of women with HIV to risk-reduction behaviors. In the MI-based approach, the patient is indirectly guided to change a health behavior in question. Similarly, Lasser et al. (
37) showed in their study that patient navigation-based interventions increase the rate of referral for colorectal cancer screening in health centers of urban areas. Consistent with the results of the current study on the lack of a significant difference between the two groups in terms of women’s level of adherence to mammography and breast clinical examination, Menon et al. (
38) showed that telephone MI-based training had no effect on colorectal cancer screening tests, including the adherence rate to fecal occult blood test, rectosigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, in a single one-minute session with a mean duration of 21.2 minutes and a 12-month follow-up. The reasons for the lack of a significant difference for the method used in the above study could be the motivational interviewing procedure, the low number of sessions, and the short follow-up duration. The reasons for the lack of a significant difference for the MI-based training in the present study, despite its positive effect being referred to by most studies, may be related to the manner based on which this approach was presented in the current study; thus, longer sessions are needed for the group motivational interviewing to be effective, which was reduced to less than one hour due to the teaching time limits faced by teachers participating in the present study, thereby reducing the opportunity for teamwork, discussion, and participation. The short follow-up duration, the small sample size, and fewer reports of examinations were other reasons. On the other hand, motivational interviewing has been effective even in the form of a single short session in some studies. However, since the control group also received conventional training in the present study, the observed difference, though very valuable clinically and statistically, was not significant according to statistical tests. Screening tests for highly educated teachers seemed to increase their tendency for carrying out screening tests in the short-term, and showed that there was no much difference between the above training and the MI-based training approach. VanBuskirk et al. (
39) believe that if a motivational interview is carried out in a clinical setting during a single session, it will be useful and effective in increasing the readiness for changing the path to achieve the goals of health behavior change. It seems that the motivational interview elements, such as avoiding confrontation and providing direct recommendations, maintaining non-judgmental opinions, empathy and understanding, listening with contemplation, intensifying cognitive conflicts in order to increase internal motivation, resolving ambivalence in favor of behavioral change, and support for self-efficacy (
40,
41) can help increase individuals’ adherence to therapies and diagnostic methods such as mammography tests, breast clinical examinations, and breast self-examinations, which are reduced due to the fear of a definite diagnosis of serious diseases as well as felling of shame and embarrassment in some cultures. Considering the foregoing, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of the level of adherence to breast self-examination, but it seems that the nature of screening tests, referral to physicians, and their prescription are strong barriers to clinical examination and mammography, which must be emphasized in future studies. Despite the relative and significant effectiveness of MI-based training, compared to the conventional training, in increasing the frequency of breast cancer screening in this study, the frequency of mammograms and breast clinical examinations was not equal to the corresponding frequency in similar studies and even equal to the screening rate in the general population of countries such as Turkey and less than in the general population of developed countries. Such a difference in the effectiveness may be due to the Iranian women’ insufficient screening adherence to breast cancer and the individual, social, and cultural barriers to clinical tests and mammograms. The lack of occupational diversity and the same education level of women surveyed, the failure to examine the effect of MI-based training on the screening adherence over a longer period, for example, over a one-year period or based on guidelines, the relatively small sample size, and the limited age range of the study group are among the most important limitations of the present study, which should be investigated in future studies.