| Literature DB >> 27539960 |
Guillaume Fontaine1, Sylvie Cossette, Sonia Heppell, Louise Boyer, Tanya Mailhot, Marie-Josée Simard, Jean-Francois Tanguay.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brief motivational interviewing (MI) can contribute to reductions in morbidity and mortality related to coronary artery disease, through health behavior change. Brief MI, unlike more intensive interventions, was proposed to meet the needs of clinicians with little spare time. While the provision of face-to-face brief MI training on a large scale is complicated, Web-based e-learning is promising because of the flexibility it offers.Entities:
Keywords: Web-based learning; cardiovascular diseases; coronary artery disease; e-learning; health behavior change; motivational interviewing; pilot study
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27539960 PMCID: PMC5010651 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6298
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments for MOTIV@CŒUR.a
| Participant timeline | Study period and time points | ||||||
| Enrollment | Experimentation | Closeout | |||||
| t0 days –20 to 0 | t1a day 1 | t1b day 1 | t2
day 15 | t3
day 30 | |||
| Eligibility screen and informed consent | × | ||||||
| Training sessions in brief MI | Session 1 (30 min) | Session 2 (20 min) | |||||
| Sociodemographic questionnaire | × | ||||||
| × | × | × | × | × | |||
| × | |||||||
| × | × | ||||||
| × | × | ||||||
aTemplate adapted from the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines [42].
bMI: motivational interviewing.
cMeasured throughout the study with indicators from Feeley and Cossette [43].
dMeasured with Cheng’s tool [28].
eMeasured with the adapted tool of Paradis et al [44].
Figure 1MOTIV@COEUR homepage (in French).
Figure 2The 4 clinical cases and motivation profiles presented in MOTIV@CŒUR.
Figure 3Structure of MOTIV@CŒUR, a web-based e-learning platform for brief motivational interviewing.
Nurses’ baseline sociodemographic data (N=31).
| Characteristic | Mean (SD) or n (%) | |
| Sex (female), n (%) | 27 (87%) | |
| Age, in years, mean (SD) | 37 (9) | |
| Education (Bachelor’s degree or higher), n (%) | 18 (58%) | |
| Position (full-time), n (%) | 18 (58%) | |
| Position in coronary care unit (bedside nurse), n (%) | 27 (87%) | |
| Experience in acute care, in years, mean (SD) | 11 (10) | |
| Day | 9 (29%) | |
| Evening | 9 (29%) | |
| Night | 8 (26%) | |
| Rotation | 5 (16%) | |
| Previously completed Web-based training (yes) | 24 (89%)a | |
an=27.
Figure 4MOTIV@CŒUR study participation flowchart.
Feasibility of MOTIV@CŒUR (N=31).
| Feasibility or outcome variable | No. or n (%) | ||
| 1. Nurses in the eligible target population (expected: 50%), n (%) | 31 (70%) | ||
| 2. Duration of recruitment (expected: 30–90 days), no. of days | 11 | ||
| 3. Completed both sessions within ≤20 days (expected: 80%), n (%) | 24 (77%) | ||
| Completed the first session at 30 days, n (%) | 28 (90%) | ||
| Completed both sessions at 30 days, n (%) | 26 (84%) | ||
| 4. Completed both sessions within 60 ± 10 min (expected: 80%), n (%)a | 19 (73%) | ||
| 5. Completed posttraining measures (expected: 80%), n (%) | 28 (90%) | ||
| Completed before a reminder was sent | 10 (32%) | ||
| Completed after 1 reminder was sent | 10 (32%) | ||
| Completed after 2 reminders were sent | 7 (23%) | ||
| Completed after 3 reminders were sent | 1 (3%) | ||
| Never completed | 2 (6%) | ||
| Completed before a reminder was sent | 14 (50%) | ||
| Completed after 1 reminder was sent | 10 (36%) | ||
| Completed after 2 reminders were sent | 0 | ||
| Completed after 3 reminders were sent | 2 (7%) | ||
| Never completed | 2 (7%) | ||
| Completed before a reminder was sent | 13 (46%) | ||
| Completed after 1 reminder was sent | 8 (29%) | ||
| Completed after 2 reminders were sent | 6 (21%) | ||
| Completed after 3 reminders were sent | 1 (4%) | ||
| Never completed | 0 | ||
an=26.
bn=28.
Posttraining acceptability of MOTIV@CŒUR (n=28).
| Outcome variable | No. of items | Possible range | Mean (SD) score | |
| 15 | 0–7 | 5.95 (0.48) | ||
| System quality | 5 | 0–7 | 6.15 (0.58) | |
| Information quality | 4 | 0–7 | 6.26 (0.60) | |
| Service quality | 3 | 0–7 | 5.28 (0.96) | |
| User interface design quality | 3 | 0–7 | 6.12 (0.69) | |
| 12 | 0–7 | 5.90 (0.75) | ||
| Perceived usefulness | 3 | 0–7 | 5.64 (0.81) | |
| Perceived ease of use | 3 | 0–7 | 6.16 (0.78) | |
| Perceived enjoyment | 3 | 0–7 | 5.80 (1.01) | |
| Intention to use | 3 | 0–7 | 6.01 (0.84) | |
Preliminary effect of MOTIV@CŒUR on perceived skill in brief motivational interviewing (MI) and self-reported clinical use of brief MI.
| Outcome variable | No. of items | Possible range | Mean (SD) scores | |||
| Pretraining | Posttraining | |||||
| 26 | 26–130 | 95.19 (16.37) | 97.50 (15.38) | .40 | ||
| Conviction interventions | 16 | 16–80 | 60.62 (9.79) | 61.53 (8.87) | .54 | |
| Confidence interventions | 10 | 10–50 | 34.59 (7.01) | 35.93 (6.98) | .30 | |
| 26 | 26–130 | 89.60 (15.74) | 94.28 (13.64) | .13 | ||
| Conviction interventions | 16 | 16–80 | 58.12 (9.44) | 59.56 (7.97) | .41 | |
| Confidence interventions | 10 | 10–50 | 31.48 (6.75) | 34.72 (6.29) | .03 | |
aHigher is better.
bn=26.
cn=25.