Randomized, Controlled Evaluation of a Virtual Human Patient for Provider Training in Motivational Interviewing
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 入组人数
- 126
- 主要终点
- Difference in Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 between the conditions
研究概览
简要总结
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of training with a virtual standardized patient on the acquisition and maintenance of motivational interviewing skills compared with traditional academic study.
详细描述
Motivational interviewing is an evidence-based counseling approach that aims to increase a patient's motivation to make positive health changes in their lives. A common training method for medical professionals is the use of human standardized patients, who are actors who pretend to be patients for educational interviews. Standardized patients are expensive and it is challenging to maintain an adequate pool of patient actors. Accordingly, after licensure or medical boards, health professionals typically adopt new evidence-based practices, like motivational interviewing, without human standardized patient training experiences. Given the established importance of post-training coaching and feedback to the acquisition of motivational interviewing, innovative training methods are needed. Computer virtual patients may provide a cost-effective alternative that is scalable and supports dissemination of evidence-based practices. This study will evaluate the efficacy of a virtual standardized patient, relative to academic study, for training motivational interviewing among health care professionals from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Other
- 盲法
- Single (Outcomes Assessor)
盲法说明
Motivational interviewing skill is coded by assessors blind to training condition and assessment time point.
入排标准
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •All health care staff (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers, psychologists) from supporting service lines are eligible to participate in the study.
排除标准
- •8 hours or more of formal training in MI in the year prior to baseline assessment.
- •Successfully completed participation in the VA Evidence Based Practice roll-out of MI.
- •Served as MI trainers or have conducted research on MI at any time
- •Do not anticipate being available for the full duration of the training study (according to their verbal self-report)
研究组 & 干预措施
Virtual Standardized Patient
Training for 45 minutes at each training time point with a computer program that presented a virtual human patient and two simulated patient encounters. The virtual standardized patient involves a branching story line. Participants select 1 of 3 computer-generated response options at each conversational pause: 1) a response that is consistent with the principles and skills of MI, 2) an MI inconsistent response, or 3) a response that is mixed - partly consistent and partly inconsistent with MI.
干预措施: Virtual Standardized Patient (Other)
Academic Study
Study of a summary handout of motivational interviewing concepts and techniques for 45-minutes.
干预措施: Academic Study (Other)
结局指标
主要结局
Difference in Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 between the conditions
时间窗: Change in Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 from post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline] to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline]
The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 is a behavioral coding system for motivational interviewing (MI) skill that involves observer ratings of 4 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale and behavior counts. The 5-point scores for Cultivating Change Talk and Softening Sustain Talk are averaged for a Technical Global summary score, and 5-point scores for Partnership and Empathy are averaged for a Relational Global summary score. Behavior counts include simple reflections, complex reflections and questions posed to patients. These behavior counts generate 2 summary scores; the percentage of reflections that are complex reflections and the ratio of reflections to questions. Participants are also categorized as meeting 'fair' and 'good' MI skill proficiency cut points for each of the 4 summary scores.
Difference in Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 between the conditions
时间窗: Change in Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 from Baseline to post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline]
The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 is a behavioral coding system for motivational interviewing (MI) skill that involves observer ratings of 4 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale and behavior counts. The 5-point scores for Cultivating Change Talk and Softening Sustain Talk are averaged for a Technical Global summary score, and 5-point scores for Partnership and Empathy are averaged for a Relational Global summary score. Behavior counts include simple reflections, complex reflections and questions posed to patients. These behavior counts generate 2 summary scores; the percentage of reflections that are complex reflections and the ratio of reflections to questions. Participants are also categorized as meeting 'fair' and 'good' MI skill proficiency cut points for each of the 4 summary scores.
Difference in Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 between the conditions
时间窗: Change in Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 from Baseline to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline]
The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 is a behavioral coding system for motivational interviewing (MI) skill that involves observer ratings of 4 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale and behavior counts. The 5-point scores for Cultivating Change Talk and Softening Sustain Talk are averaged for a Technical Global summary score, and 5-point scores for Partnership and Empathy are averaged for a Relational Global summary score. Behavior counts include simple reflections, complex reflections and questions posed to patients. These behavior counts generate 2 summary scores; the percentage of reflections that are complex reflections and the ratio of reflections to questions. Participants are also categorized as meeting 'fair' and 'good' MI skill proficiency cut points for each of the 4 summary scores.
次要结局
- Difference in Helpful Responses Questionnaire between the conditions(Change in Helpful Responses Questionnaire from post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline] to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
- Difference in Motivational Knowledge Test-Revised between the conditions(Change in Motivational Knowledge Test-Revised from post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline] to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
- Difference in Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test between the conditions(Change in Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test from post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline] to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
- Difference in Motivational Interviewing Self-efficacy Scale between the conditions(Change in Motivational Interviewing Self-efficacy Scale from post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline] to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
- Difference in Provider Knowledge, Skills, and Confidence Survey between the conditions(Change in Provider Knowledge, Skills, and Confidence Survey from post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline] to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
- Difference in Provider Training Satisfaction Survey between the conditions(Post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline])
- Difference in Helpful Responses Questionnaire between the conditions(Change in Helpful Responses Questionnaire from Baseline to post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline])
- Difference in Helpful Responses Questionnaire between the conditions(Change in Helpful Responses Questionnaire from Baseline to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
- Difference in Motivational Interviewing Self-efficacy Scale between the conditions(Change in Motivational Interviewing Self-efficacy Scale from Baseline to post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline])
- Difference in Motivational Interviewing Self-efficacy Scale between the conditions(Change in Motivational Interviewing Self-efficacy Scale from Baseline to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
- Difference in Provider Knowledge, Skills, and Confidence Survey between the conditions(Change in Provider Knowledge, Skills, and Confidence Survey from baseline to post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline])
- Difference in Provider Knowledge, Skills, and Confidence Survey between the conditions(Change in Provider Knowledge, Skills, and Confidence Survey from baseline to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
- Difference in Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test between the conditions(Change in Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test from baseline to post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline])
- Difference in Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test between the conditions(Change in Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test from baseline to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
- Difference in Motivational Knowledge Test-Revised between the conditions(Change in Motivational Knowledge Test-Revised from baseline to post-training [approximately 2-weeks after baseline])
- Difference in Motivational Knowledge Test-Revised between the conditions(Change in Motivational Knowledge Test-Revised from baseline to 3-month follow-up training [approximately 3.5-months after baseline])
研究者
Greg Reger
Deputy Associate Chief of Staff
VA Puget Sound Health Care System