Rubak Sune, Sandbaek Annelli, Lauritzen Torsten, Borch-Johnsen Knut, Christensen Bo
Department of Paediatrics, Skejby University, Vennelyst Boulevard 6, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Jun;56(527):429-36.
Motivational interviewing has been shown to be broadly usable in a scientific setting in the management of behavioural problems and diseases. However, data concerning implementation and aspects regarding the use of motivational interviewing in general practice is missing.
To evaluate GPs' conception of motivational interviewing in terms of methods, adherence to and aspects of its use in general practice after a course.
In a randomised controlled trial concerning intensive treatment of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes detected by screening, the GPs were randomised to a course in motivational interviewing or not. The study also included a third group of GPs outside the randomised controlled trial, who had 2 years previously received a similar course in motivational interviewing.
General practice in Denmark.
The intervention consisted of a 1.5-day residential course in motivational interviewing with 0.5-day follow-ups, twice during the first year. Questionnaire data from GPs were obtained.
We obtained a 100% response-rate from the GPs in all three groups. The GPs trained in motivational interviewing adhered statistically significantly more to the methods than did the control group. More than 95% of the GPs receiving the course stated that they had used the specific methods in general practice.
A course in motivational interviewing seems to influence GPs professional behaviour. Based on self-reported questionnaires, this study shows that the GPs after a course in motivational interviewing seemed to change their professional behaviour in daily practice using motivational interviewing compared with the control group. GPs evaluated motivational interviewing to be more effective than 'traditional advice giving'. Furthermore, GPs stated that the method was not more time consuming than 'traditional advice giving'.
动机性访谈已被证明在行为问题和疾病管理的科学环境中具有广泛的适用性。然而，关于动机性访谈在一般实践中的实施情况和使用方面的数据却缺失。
在参加一门课程后，从方法、在一般实践中的依从性及其使用方面评估全科医生对动机性访谈的理解。
在一项关于对通过筛查发现的新诊断2型糖尿病患者进行强化治疗的随机对照试验中，全科医生被随机分为接受动机性访谈课程组和未接受组。该研究还包括第三组未参与随机对照试验的全科医生，他们在两年前接受过类似的动机性访谈课程。
丹麦的一般实践。
干预措施包括为期1.5天的动机性访谈住宿课程，并在第一年进行两次为期0.5天的随访。获取了全科医生的问卷数据。
三组全科医生的回复率均为100%。接受动机性访谈培训的全科医生在统计学上比对照组更严格地遵循这些方法。超过95%参加该课程的全科医生表示他们在一般实践中使用了特定方法。
动机性访谈课程似乎会影响全科医生的职业行为。基于自我报告的问卷，本研究表明，与对照组相比，接受动机性访谈课程后的全科医生在日常实践中使用动机性访谈时似乎改变了他们的职业行为。全科医生评估动机性访谈比“传统建议”更有效。此外，全科医生表示该方法并不比“传统建议”更耗时。
