AIM: The present study assessed the effects of a Motivational Interviewing (MI) based counselling training for nurses on clinical, behavioural and process outcomes among diabetes type 2 patients. METHODS: The study is an RCT with follow-up measurements after 12 and 24 months. Thirty-three nurses and 584 patients participated. Nurses in the experimental condition received the training; control group nurses were trained after the study. The training consisted of two training sessions, two follow-up meetings, written feedback and three direct feedback sessions. Basic MI-principles and techniques and an MI-based counselling protocol were addressed. RESULTS: Results indicated disadvantageous effects on fat intake and HDL and advantageous effects on chance locus of control and knowledge. No effects were found on vegetable or fruit intake, physical activity, HbA1c, weight, blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides, health care climate, quality of life or on self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: As in other MI studies, mixed results were found. It would be premature to recommend dissemination of MI in diabetes care. More studies are needed in real-world settings with health care professionals of the field instead of intensively trained MI interventionists. Knowledge should be gained about adequate training and factors contributing to the implementation of MI in daily practice.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The present study assessed the effects of a Motivational Interviewing (MI) based counselling training for nurses on clinical, behavioural and process outcomes among diabetes type 2patients. METHODS: The study is an RCT with follow-up measurements after 12 and 24 months. Thirty-three nurses and 584 patients participated. Nurses in the experimental condition received the training; control group nurses were trained after the study. The training consisted of two training sessions, two follow-up meetings, written feedback and three direct feedback sessions. Basic MI-principles and techniques and an MI-based counselling protocol were addressed. RESULTS: Results indicated disadvantageous effects on fat intake and HDL and advantageous effects on chance locus of control and knowledge. No effects were found on vegetable or fruit intake, physical activity, HbA1c, weight, blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides, health care climate, quality of life or on self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: As in other MI studies, mixed results were found. It would be premature to recommend dissemination of MI in diabetes care. More studies are needed in real-world settings with health care professionals of the field instead of intensively trained MI interventionists. Knowledge should be gained about adequate training and factors contributing to the implementation of MI in daily practice.
Authors: Rachel D Barnes; Valentina Ivezaj; Steve Martino; Brian P Pittman; Manuel Paris; Carlos M Grilo Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Anthony Jerant; Melissa Lichte; Richard L Kravitz; Daniel J Tancredi; Elizabeth M Magnan; Andrew Hudnut; Peter Franks Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-07-02
Authors: Khalida Ismail; Kirsty Winkley; Nicole de Zoysa; Anita Patel; Margaret Heslin; Helen Graves; Stephen Thomas; Dominic Stringer; Daniel Stahl; Stephanie A Amiel Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Renate Jansink; Jozé Braspenning; Ellen Keizer; Trudy van der Weijden; Glyn Elwyn; Richard Grol Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.581