Fitness Facility Staff Can Be Trained to Deliver a Motivational Interviewing-Informed Diabetes Prevention Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Training programs must be evaluated to understand whether the training was successful at enabling staff to implement a program with fidelity. This is especially important when the training has been translated to a new context. The aim of this community case study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the in-person Small Steps for Big Changes training for fitness facility staff using the 4-level Kirkpatrick training evaluation model. Methods: Eight staff were trained to deliver the motivational interviewing-informed Small Steps for Big Changes program for individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Between August 2019 and March 2020, 32 clients enrolled in the program and were allocated to one of the eight staff. The Kirkpatrick 4-level training evaluation model was used to guide this research. Level one assessed staff satisfaction to the training on a 5-point scale. Level two assessed staff program knowledge and motivational interviewing knowledge/skills. Level three assessed staff behaviors by examining their use of motivational interviewing with each client. Level four assessed training outcomes using clients' perceived satisfaction with their staff and basic psychological needs support both on 7-point scales. Results: Staff were satisfied with the training (M = 4.43; SD = 0.45; range = 3.86–4.71). All learning measures demonstrated high post-training scores that were retained at implementation follow-up. Staff used motivational interviewing skills in practice and delivered the program at a client-centered level (≥6; M = 6.34; SD = 0.83; range = 3.75–7.80). Overall, clients perceived staff supported their basic psychological needs (M = 6.55; SD = 0.64; range = 6.17–6.72) and reported high staff satisfaction scores (M = 6.88; SD = 0.33; range = 6–7). Conclusion: The Small Steps for Big Changes training was successful and fitness facility staff delivered a motivational interviewing-informed program. While not all staff operated at a client-centered level, clients perceived their basic psychological needs to be supported. Findings support the training for future scale-up sites. Community fitness staff represent a feasible resource through which to run evidence-based counseling programs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".