Dataset Information

Implementation of motivational interviewing in the general practice setting: a qualitative study

ABSTRACT:

Background

General Practitioners (GPs) and Practice Nurses (PNs) collaboratively play an important role in preventing and monitoring chronic diseases. They are trained in Motivational Interviewing (MI), which is a communication style to intrinsically motivate patients to a healthier lifestyle. However, being trained in MI skills does not necessarily mean that it is implemented in daily practice so patients actually benefit. The aim of this study is to identify factors that facilitate or impede the implementation of MI in General Practice.

Methods

A total of 152 participants (93 GP-trainees and 59 PN-trainees) who were trained in MI completed a questionnaire regarding the implementation of MI. Semi-structured interviews (N = 17) were conducted with GPs and PNs (ranging from almost graduated to highly experienced) who were selected through the process of maximum variation sampling. The interview guide was based on the five-stage implementation model of Grol and Wensing.

Results

Thirteen factors that influence the implementation of MI in General Practice were identified. They can be allocated to three categories: (1) setting factors such as time, (2) GP/PN factors such as self-efficacy, and (3) patient factors such as cultural background.

Conclusions

Overall, GPs and PNs considered MI to be useful and part of their professional responsibility. Most difficulties become apparent in stage 4 (change: applying MI skills in practice) and 5 (consolidation: integrating MI into daily routine and embedment in organisation) of Grol and Wensing’s model. Therefore, it is important that training does not only focus on MI skills. It is essential to pay explicit attention to the factors that impact implementation, as well as the appropriate tools to tackle the barriers. These insights can help trainers to effectively support GPs and PNs to apply and maintain their MI skills in daily practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01623-z.

SUBMITTER: Boom S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8800318 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPotentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has been linked with adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Feedback interventions targeting PIP have shown promising results. However, translation from research to everyday practice remains a challenge. With the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as overarching framework, we aimed to explore the implementation processes performed by general practices in a real-life, quality improvement intervention using feedback on practice-level prescribing.MethodsAll 376 general practices in the Central Denmark Region received a prescribing feedback intervention targeting selected types of PIP. Six months later, they received an evaluation questionnaire, to which 45% responded. Among 102 practices reporting to have made changes in response to the intervention, we conducted individual, semi-structured interviews with ten GPs. Maximum variation was sought in terms of baseline prescribing status, implementation activities, practice type and geographical location. The interviews were analysed thematically using NPT.ResultsThe implementation processes in general practice reflected the four NPT constructs. Key motivators for implementation included the GPs' professional values and interests, but pragmatic considerations were also of importance (coherence). A collective versus an individual approach to the engagement and planning of the implementation process (cognitive participation) was observed. Similarly, a distinction was evident between practice-level actions involving the entire practice team as opposed to individual-level actions performed by the individual GP (collective action). Several challenges to the implementation processes were identified, including patient influences and competing priorities at multiple levels (reflexive monitoring). Additionally, internal evaluation and normalisation of new practices occurred in varying degrees.ConclusionNPT provided a useful framework for understanding implementation processes in general practice. Our results emphasise that clear professional aims and feasible content of interventions are key for GP motivation. This may be ensured through cooperation with GPs' professional organisation, which may strengthen intervention legitimacy and uptake. Two main implementation strategies were identified: practice-level and GP-level strategies. Intervention developers need to recognise both strategies to deliver intervention content and implementation support that promote sustainable improvements in prescribing practice. Competing demands and patient influences remain important challenges that need to be addressed in future studies to further facilitate the reduction of PIPs.

Project description:BackgroundMotivational interviewing (MI) has been shown to effectively improve self-management for youth living with HIV (YLH) and has demonstrated success across the youth HIV care cascade-currently, the only behavioral intervention to do so. Substantial barriers prevent the effective implementation of MI in real-world settings. Thus, there is a critical need to understand how to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs), such as MI, and promote behavior change in youth HIV treatment settings as risk-taking behaviors peak during adolescence and young adulthood.ObjectiveThis study aims to describe the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions (ATN) protocol of a tailored MI (TMI) implementation-effectiveness trial (ATN 146 TMI) to scale up an EBP in multidisciplinary adolescent HIV settings while balancing flexibility and fidelity. This protocol is part of the Scale It Up program described in this issue.MethodsThis study is a type 3, hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial that tests the effect of TMI on fidelity (MI competency and adherence to program requirements) while integrating findings from two other ATN protocols described in this issue-ATN 153 Exploration, Preparations, Implementation, Sustainment and ATN 154 Cascade Monitoring. ATN 153 guides the mixed methods investigation of barriers and facilitators of implementation, while ATN 154 provides effectiveness outcomes. The TMI study population consists of providers at 10 adolescent HIV care sites around the United States. These 10 clinics are randomly assigned to 5 blocks to receive the TMI implementation intervention (workshop and trigger-based coaching guided by local implementation teams) utilizing the dynamic wait-listed controlled design. After 12 months of implementation, a second randomization compares a combination of internal facilitator coaching with the encouragement of communities of practice (CoPs) to CoPs alone. Participants receive MI competency assessments on a quarterly basis during preimplementation, during the 12 months of implementation and during the sustainment period for a total of 36 months. We hypothesize that MI competency ratings will be higher among providers during the TMI implementation phase compared with the standard care phase, and successful implementation will be associated with improved cascade-related outcomes, namely undetectable viral load and a greater number of clinic visits among YLH.ResultsParticipant recruitment began in August 2017 and is ongoing. As of mid-May 2018, TMI has 150 active participants.ConclusionsThis protocol describes the underlying theoretical framework, study design, measures, and lessons learned for TMI, a type 3, hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial, which has the potential to scale up MI and improve patient outcomes in adolescent HIV settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03681912; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03681912 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/754oT7Khx).International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/11200.

Project description:Motivational interviewing (MI) is a method for building motivation for behaviour change that has potential for use in respiratory contexts. There is a paucity of published research exploring the feasibility of this intervention from the clinicians' perspective. This study aimed to explore respiratory clinicians' views of MI: Is it perceived as useful? Could it be integrated into practice? What training would be required to make it part of routine care? Nine respiratory clinicians attended a one-day MI workshop and a semi-structured face-to-face interview two weeks later. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with thematic analysis. Four main themes are presented-1) MI's suitability for use in respiratory contexts: participants saw potential in using MI to motivate their patients to engage with prescribed respiratory interventions, such as increased physical activity. Those who experimented with new skills post-workshop were encouraged by patient responsiveness and outcomes. 2) MI's relationship with routine clinical practice: some believed they already used elements of MI, but most participants felt MI was fundamentally 'different' to their normal style of working. 3) Implementation issues: additional time would need to be made available to enable an appropriate depth of conversation. 4) Training issues: Participants sensed the complexity of MI could make it difficult to learn and that it would take them time to become competent. On-going supervision was perceived as necessary. One key challenge identified was how to suppress behaviours that are antithetical to MI. These findings lend support to the feasibility of using MI in respiratory contexts such as pulmonary rehabilitation programmes, but highlight implementation and training issues that would need to be overcome. The insights have informed the development of another study, testing the effect of a tailored training package on MI skill, specifically for respiratory clinicians delivering pulmonary rehabilitation programmes.