BACKGROUND:Motivational interviewing has been shown to be broadly usable in a scientific setting in the management of behavioural problems and diseases. However, data concerning implementation and aspects regarding the use of motivational interviewing in general practice is missing. AIM: To evaluate GPs' conception of motivational interviewing in terms of methods, adherence to and aspects of its use in general practice after a course. STUDY DESIGN: In a randomised controlled trial concerning intensive treatment of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes detected by screening, the GPs were randomised to a course in motivational interviewing or not. The study also included a third group of GPs outside the randomised controlled trial, who had 2 years previously received a similar course in motivational interviewing. SETTING:General practice in Denmark. METHOD: The intervention consisted of a 1.5-day residential course in motivational interviewing with 0.5-day follow-ups, twice during the first year. Questionnaire data from GPs were obtained. RESULTS: We obtained a 100% response-rate from the GPs in all three groups. The GPs trained in motivational interviewing adhered statistically significantly more to the methods than did the control group. More than 95% of the GPs receiving the course stated that they had used the specific methods in general practice. CONCLUSION: A course in motivational interviewing seems to influence GPs professional behaviour. Based on self-reported questionnaires, this study shows that the GPs after a course in motivational interviewing seemed to change their professional behaviour in daily practice using motivational interviewing compared with the control group. GPs evaluated motivational interviewing to be more effective than 'traditional advice giving'. Furthermore, GPs stated that the method was not more time consuming than 'traditional advice giving'.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing has been shown to be broadly usable in a scientific setting in the management of behavioural problems and diseases. However, data concerning implementation and aspects regarding the use of motivational interviewing in general practice is missing. AIM: To evaluate GPs' conception of motivational interviewing in terms of methods, adherence to and aspects of its use in general practice after a course. STUDY DESIGN: In a randomised controlled trial concerning intensive treatment of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes detected by screening, the GPs were randomised to a course in motivational interviewing or not. The study also included a third group of GPs outside the randomised controlled trial, who had 2 years previously received a similar course in motivational interviewing. SETTING: General practice in Denmark. METHOD: The intervention consisted of a 1.5-day residential course in motivational interviewing with 0.5-day follow-ups, twice during the first year. Questionnaire data from GPs were obtained. RESULTS: We obtained a 100% response-rate from the GPs in all three groups. The GPs trained in motivational interviewing adhered statistically significantly more to the methods than did the control group. More than 95% of the GPs receiving the course stated that they had used the specific methods in general practice. CONCLUSION: A course in motivational interviewing seems to influence GPs professional behaviour. Based on self-reported questionnaires, this study shows that the GPs after a course in motivational interviewing seemed to change their professional behaviour in daily practice using motivational interviewing compared with the control group. GPs evaluated motivational interviewing to be more effective than 'traditional advice giving'. Furthermore, GPs stated that the method was not more time consuming than 'traditional advice giving'.
Authors: Michael A Cucciare; Nicole Ketroser; Paula Wilbourne; Amanda M Midboe; Ruth Cronkite; Steven M Berg-Smith; John Chardos Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Signe S Rasmussen; Charlotte Glümer; Annelli Sandbaek; Torsten Lauritzen; Knut Borch-Johnsen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.581