Applicability of Motivational Interviewing for Chronic Disease Management in Primary Care Following a Web-Based E-Learning Course: Cross-Sectional Study.

disease management e-learning health behavior change motivational interviewing primary care web-based learning

Journal

JMIR mental health
ISSN: 2368-7959
Titre abrégé: JMIR Ment Health
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101658926

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Apr 2019
Historique:
received: 18 10 2018
accepted: 18 02 2019
revised: 30 01 2019
entrez: 30 4 2019
pubmed: 30 4 2019
medline: 30 4 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Motivational interviewing (MI) is an established communication method for enhancing intrinsic motivation for changing health behavior. E-learning can reduce the cost and time involved in providing continuing education and can be easily integrated into individual working arrangements and the daily routines of medical professionals. Thus, a Web-based course was devised to familiarize health professionals with different levels of education and expertise with MI techniques for patients with chronic conditions. The aim of this study was to report participants' opinion on the practicality of MI (as learned in the course) in daily practice, stratified by the level of education. Participants (N=607) of the MI Web-based training course evaluated the course over 18 months, using a self-administered questionnaire. The evaluation was analyzed descriptively and stratified for the level of education (medical students, physicians in specialist training [PSTs], and general practitioners [GPs]). Participants rated the applicability of the skills and knowledge gained by the course as positive (medical students: 94% [79/84] good; PSTs: 88.6% [109/123] excellent; and GPs: 51.3% [182/355] excellent). When asked whether they envisage the use of MI in the future, 79% (67/84) of the students stated to a certain extent, 88.6% (109/123) of the PSTs stated to a great extent, and 38.6% (137/355) of GPs stated to a great extent. Participants acknowledged an improvement of communication skills such as inviting (medical students: 85% [72/84]; PSTs: 90.2% [111/123]; GPs: 37.2% [132/355]) and encouraging (medical students: 81% [68/84]; PSTs: 45.5% [56/123]; GPs: 36.3% [129/355]) patients to talk about behavior change and conveying respect for patient's choices (medical students: 72% [61/84]; PSTs: 50.0% [61/123]; GPs: 23.4% [83/355]). Participants confirmed the practicality of MI. However, the extent to which the practicality of MI was acknowledged as well as its expected benefits depended on the individual's level of education/expertise.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Motivational interviewing (MI) is an established communication method for enhancing intrinsic motivation for changing health behavior. E-learning can reduce the cost and time involved in providing continuing education and can be easily integrated into individual working arrangements and the daily routines of medical professionals. Thus, a Web-based course was devised to familiarize health professionals with different levels of education and expertise with MI techniques for patients with chronic conditions.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to report participants' opinion on the practicality of MI (as learned in the course) in daily practice, stratified by the level of education.
METHODS METHODS
Participants (N=607) of the MI Web-based training course evaluated the course over 18 months, using a self-administered questionnaire. The evaluation was analyzed descriptively and stratified for the level of education (medical students, physicians in specialist training [PSTs], and general practitioners [GPs]).
RESULTS RESULTS
Participants rated the applicability of the skills and knowledge gained by the course as positive (medical students: 94% [79/84] good; PSTs: 88.6% [109/123] excellent; and GPs: 51.3% [182/355] excellent). When asked whether they envisage the use of MI in the future, 79% (67/84) of the students stated to a certain extent, 88.6% (109/123) of the PSTs stated to a great extent, and 38.6% (137/355) of GPs stated to a great extent. Participants acknowledged an improvement of communication skills such as inviting (medical students: 85% [72/84]; PSTs: 90.2% [111/123]; GPs: 37.2% [132/355]) and encouraging (medical students: 81% [68/84]; PSTs: 45.5% [56/123]; GPs: 36.3% [129/355]) patients to talk about behavior change and conveying respect for patient's choices (medical students: 72% [61/84]; PSTs: 50.0% [61/123]; GPs: 23.4% [83/355]).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Participants confirmed the practicality of MI. However, the extent to which the practicality of MI was acknowledged as well as its expected benefits depended on the individual's level of education/expertise.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31033446
pii: v6i4e12540
doi: 10.2196/12540
pmc: PMC6658265
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e12540

Informations de copyright

©Karoline Lukaschek, Nico Schneider, Mercedes Schelle, Ulrik Bak Kirk, Tina Eriksson, Ilkka Kunnamo, Andrée Rochfort, Claire Collins, Jochen Gensichen. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (http://mental.jmir.org), 29.04.2019.

Références

Lancet. 2003 Oct 11;362(9391):1225-30
pubmed: 14568747
Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Apr;55(513):305-12
pubmed: 15826439
Br J Health Psychol. 2006 May;11(Pt 2):319-32
pubmed: 16643702
J Psychoactive Drugs. 2006 Dec;38(4):483-91
pubmed: 17373564
Acad Med. 2008 Aug;83(8):761-7
pubmed: 18667892
JAMA. 2008 Sep 10;300(10):1181-96
pubmed: 18780847
J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2009 Mar;16(1):87-93
pubmed: 19253016
BMJ. 2010 Apr 27;340:c1900
pubmed: 20423957
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Jul;84(1):16-26
pubmed: 20667432
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Feb 1;108(5):1821-6
pubmed: 21245314
Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Nov;93(2):157-68
pubmed: 24001658
Transl Behav Med. 2011 Dec;1(4):588-94
pubmed: 24073081
Nursing. 2014 Mar;44(3):40-5; quiz 45-6
pubmed: 24463613
Front Psychiatry. 2014 Aug 28;5:113
pubmed: 25221524
Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 May;57:70-81
pubmed: 27045566
Int J Med Inform. 2016 Aug;92:1-7
pubmed: 27318066
Implement Sci. 2016 Jul 16;11:96
pubmed: 27422283
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 11;6(8):e011473
pubmed: 27515753
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Aug 18;18(8):e224
pubmed: 27539960
JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Jul 05;6(7):e128
pubmed: 28679491
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Sep 29;19(1):163
pubmed: 30268092
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1993 Jun;61(3):455-61
pubmed: 8326047

Auteurs

Karoline Lukaschek (K)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.

Nico Schneider (N)

Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, University of Jena, Jena, Germany.
Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, University of Jena, Jena, Germany.

Mercedes Schelle (M)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, University of Jena, Jena, Germany.

Ulrik Bak Kirk (UB)

European Society for Quality and Safety in Family Practice, København, Denmark.

Tina Eriksson (T)

European Society for Quality and Safety in Family Practice, København, Denmark.

Ilkka Kunnamo (I)

The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Helsinki, Finland.

Andrée Rochfort (A)

Irish College of General Practitioners, Dublin, Ireland.

Claire Collins (C)

Irish College of General Practitioners, Dublin, Ireland.

Jochen Gensichen (J)

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, University of Jena, Jena, Germany.

Classifications MeSH