P-606 THE USABILITY OF A MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING TRAINING TOOLKIT IN WORK REHABILITATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction A free web-based training toolkit is available to perform Motivational Interviewing (MI) intervention for work rehabilitation programs. Objectives To assess the usability of the toolkit by work rehabilitation professionals. Method A descriptive qualitative study was conducted with professionals in work rehabilitation for musculoskeletal disorders. They had varying levels of experience with MI. They consulted the Internet-based training (4 hours) and applied MI with a standardized patient. A trained expert analyzed the interviews using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI 2.0). Professionals were interviewed individually to obtain feedback on the usability of the toolkit based on this experience. Two coders had an agreement of 85%. Results A total of 19 professionals participated (mean age =32; mean years of experience in work rehabilitation = 5.2). Prior to training, 6 had no experience with MI, 9 had moderate experience, and 4 self-identified as experienced. Overall, professionals were satisfied with the toolkit. The lowest satisfaction was moderate (n=1). Mean scores for treatment integrity was 3/5 (basic MI proficiency). Discussion Professionals found the training useful, clear, and adapted to the context of work rehabilitation. Training videos were highly appreciated. The ease of site navigation and absence of a printable document was less appreciated for a minority of professionals. Experimentation with a standardized patient and expert feedback was suggested as an addition to the toolkit, in a paid supplement. Conclusion A training toolkit for the MI is available and is considered usable by the intended users. Testing the perceived MI acceptability of workers will be the next step.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".