Robert Keeley1,2, Matthew Engel3, Alex Reed4, David Brody5,6, Brian L Burke7. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, 13001 E. 17th Pl, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. Robert.Keeley@ucdenver.edu. 2. Denver Health, 301 W. 6th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80204, USA. Robert.Keeley@ucdenver.edu. 3. University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, 1010 N. Kansas St, Wichita, KS, 67214, USA. 4. Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, 13001 E. 17th Pl, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, 13001 E. 17th Pl, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 6. Colorado Community Health Alliance, Denver, CO, USA. 7. Department of Psychology, Fort Lewis College, 1000 Rim Drive, Durango, CO, 81301, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Implementing Motivational Interviewing (MI) in primary care settings has been problematic due in part to persistent gaps in knowledge. Examples include poor understanding of how to effectively train persons to conduct MI, or of which aspects of MI-related communication are associated with better outcomes for patients. This review describes how recent research findings addressing the knowledge gaps support a growing role for MI in primary care. RECENT FINDINGS: Two trials of MI training combined classroom time with ongoing coaching and feedback, resulting in enhanced MI ability relative to a control arm where PCPs received minimal or no MI training. A third MI training trial excluded coaching and feedback, failing to increase use of MI. Adding to a growing list of behavioral health-related problems for which MI training has shown some effectiveness, a trial of training PCPs to use MI with depressed patients was associated with significantly improved depressive symptoms. Moreover, aspects of the PCPs' MI-related language and patients' arguments for positive behavior changes, "change talk," appeared to explain the positive effects of MI training on depression outcome. MI-training approaches have improved such that PCPs and possibly other clinic staff may want to consider MI training as a way to more effectively support their patients as they address behavioral health-related problems (e.g., tobacco use). MI training should focus on eliciting "change talk" from patients. Researchers and funding agencies might collaborate to continue closing knowledge gaps in the MI literature.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Implementing Motivational Interviewing (MI) in primary care settings has been problematic due in part to persistent gaps in knowledge. Examples include poor understanding of how to effectively train persons to conduct MI, or of which aspects of MI-related communication are associated with better outcomes for patients. This review describes how recent research findings addressing the knowledge gaps support a growing role for MI in primary care. RECENT FINDINGS: Two trials of MI training combined classroom time with ongoing coaching and feedback, resulting in enhanced MI ability relative to a control arm where PCPs received minimal or no MI training. A third MI training trial excluded coaching and feedback, failing to increase use of MI. Adding to a growing list of behavioral health-related problems for which MI training has shown some effectiveness, a trial of training PCPs to use MI with depressedpatients was associated with significantly improved depressive symptoms. Moreover, aspects of the PCPs' MI-related language and patients' arguments for positive behavior changes, "change talk," appeared to explain the positive effects of MI training on depression outcome. MI-training approaches have improved such that PCPs and possibly other clinic staff may want to consider MI training as a way to more effectively support their patients as they address behavioral health-related problems (e.g., tobacco use). MI training should focus on eliciting "change talk" from patients. Researchers and funding agencies might collaborate to continue closing knowledge gaps in the MI literature.
Entities:
Keywords:
MI training; Motivational Interviewing; Primary care
Authors: Stephen M Petterson; Winston R Liaw; Robert L Phillips; David L Rabin; David S Meyers; Andrew W Bazemore Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
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: Robert D Keeley; David S Brody; Matthew Engel; Brian L Burke; Kimberly Nordstrom; Ernesto Moralez; L Miriam Dickinson; Caroline Emsermann Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2016-09-05
Authors: Shari L Barkin; Stacia A Finch; Edward H Ip; Benjamin Scheindlin; Joseph A Craig; Jennifer Steffes; Victoria Weiley; Eric Slora; David Altman; Richard C Wasserman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Caitlyn Hauff; Sharon M Fruh; Rebecca J Graves; Brook M Sims; Susan G Williams; Leigh A Minchew; Heather R Hall; Terrie H Platt; MiʼAsia Barclay Journal: Nurse Pract Date: 2019-06