Health Care Practitioners' perceptions of motivational interviewing training for facilitating behaviour change among patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate, qualitatively, practitioners' perceptions of a 1-day interactive and applied workshop in motivational interviewing (MI). Specifically, participants explored the training's usefulness in supporting perceptions of competence, confidence, and attitudes towards facilitating behaviour change among patients. METHODS: Ten health practitioners including dieticians, pharmacists, nurses, and social workers participated in this qualitative pilot study. Participants received a 1-day (7.5 hour) workshop focused on MI. In-depth one-on-one interviews were conducted prior to the workshop and at 1 and 4 weeks post-training. Methods were employed throughout to ensure data trustworthiness. RESULTS: Pre-workshop themes about facilitating patient behaviour change included: persistence; advice-giving; behaviour change as hard work for practitioner; low perceived confidence and competence to help; barriers; and feelings of frustration. Post-workshop themes included a renewed inspiration and motivation to facilitate behaviour change; partnering with patients and giving less advice; experiencing a positive perceived impact on the patients; feeling that behaviour change is easier and less stressful; enjoying higher levels of competence and confidence; and being mindful of practitioner impact. CONCLUSION: Participation in the structured, interactive, and applied MI training was deemed effective by practitioners dealing with patient behaviour change. Allied health care practitioners are in a key position to facilitate health behaviour changes that contribute to behaviour-related illness. The integration of similar MI trainings for health practitioners should be further explored with a larger group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".