Kathryn I Pollak1, Cynthia J Coffman2, James A Tulsky3, Stewart C Alexander4, Truls Østbye5, David Farrell6, Pauline Lyna7, Rowena J Dolor8, Alicia Bilheimer7, Pao-Hwa Lin8, Michael E Bodner9, Terrill D Bravender10. 1. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: kathryn.pollak@duke.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Health Services Research and Development Service, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Department of Consumer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 5. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 6. People Designs Inc., Durham, North Carolina. 7. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 8. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 9. School of Human Kinetics, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia, Canada. 10. Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We tested whether an online intervention combined with a patient feedback report improved physicians' use of motivational interviewing (MI) techniques when discussing weight with overweight and obese adolescents. METHODS: We randomized 46 pediatricians and family physicians and audio recorded 527 patient encounters. Half of the physicians received an individually tailored, online intervention. Then, all physicians received a summary report detailing patient's weight-related behaviors. We coded MI techniques and used multilevel linear mixed-effects models to examine arm differences. We assessed patients' motivation to change and perceived empathy after encounter. RESULTS: We found arm differences in the Intervention Phase and the Summary Report Phase: Empathy (p < .001), MI Spirit (p < .001), open questions (p = .02), and MI consistent behaviors (p = .04). Across all three phases (Baseline, Intervention, and Summary Report), when physicians had higher Empathy scores, patients were more motivated to change diet (p = .03) and physical activity (p = .03). In addition, patients rated physicians as more empathic when physicians used more MI consistent techniques (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: An individually tailored, online intervention coupled with a Summary Report improved physicians' use of MI, which improved the patient experience.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We tested whether an online intervention combined with a patient feedback report improved physicians' use of motivational interviewing (MI) techniques when discussing weight with overweight and obese adolescents. METHODS: We randomized 46 pediatricians and family physicians and audio recorded 527 patient encounters. Half of the physicians received an individually tailored, online intervention. Then, all physicians received a summary report detailing patient's weight-related behaviors. We coded MI techniques and used multilevel linear mixed-effects models to examine arm differences. We assessed patients' motivation to change and perceived empathy after encounter. RESULTS: We found arm differences in the Intervention Phase and the Summary Report Phase: Empathy (p < .001), MI Spirit (p < .001), open questions (p = .02), and MI consistent behaviors (p = .04). Across all three phases (Baseline, Intervention, and Summary Report), when physicians had higher Empathy scores, patients were more motivated to change diet (p = .03) and physical activity (p = .03). In addition, patients rated physicians as more empathic when physicians used more MI consistent techniques (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: An individually tailored, online intervention coupled with a Summary Report improved physicians' use of MI, which improved the patient experience.
Authors: James A Tulsky; Robert M Arnold; Stewart C Alexander; Maren K Olsen; Amy S Jeffreys; Keri L Rodriguez; Celette Sugg Skinner; David Farrell; Amy P Abernethy; Kathryn I Pollak Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Heather M Pierson; Steven C Hayes; Elizabeth V Gifford; Nancy Roget; Michele Padilla; Richard Bissett; Kristen Berry; Barbara Kohlenberg; Robert Rhode; Gary Fisher Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2006-10-13
Authors: Mary E Cox; William S Yancy; Cynthia J Coffman; Truls Ostbye; James A Tulsky; Stewart C Alexander; Rebecca J Namenek Brouwer; Rowena J Dolor; Kathryn I Pollak Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2011-02-12
Authors: Mary Catherine Beach; M Barton Laws; Gary Rose; Debra Roter; Yoojin Lee; Geetanjali Chander; Tanita Woodson; Richard D Moore; William Rogers; Ira B Wilson Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2018-01
Authors: Kathryn I Pollak; James A Tulsky; Terrill Bravender; Truls Østbye; Pauline Lyna; Rowena J Dolor; Cynthia J Coffman; Alicia Bilheimer; Pao-Hwa Lin; David Farrell; Michael E Bodner; Stewart C Alexander Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-05-09
Authors: Monique K Vallabhan; Alberta S Kong; Elizabeth Yakes Jimenez; Linda C Summers; Conni J DeBlieck; Sarah W Feldstein Ewing Journal: Res Theory Nurs Pract Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 0.745
Authors: Jennifer Freytag; Jinna Chu; Sylvia J Hysong; Richard L Street; Christine M Markham; Thomas P Giordano; Robert A Westbrook; Sarah Njue-Marendes; Syundai R Johnson; Bich N Dang Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 2.463