Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23537327›Full record

Trial reportBMC family practice2013

Minimal improvement of nurses' motivational interviewing skills in routine diabetes care one year after training: a cluster randomized trial.

Renate Jansink, Jozé Braspenning, Miranda Laurant, Ellen Keizer, Glyn Elwyn, Trudy van der Weijden, Richard Grol

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC family practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Response to the letter to the editor.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2013
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Renate JansinkScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen 6500 HB, The Netherlands. r.jansink@iq.umcn.nl
Jozé Braspenning
Miranda Laurant
Ellen Keizer
Glyn Elwyn
Trudy van der Weijden
Richard Grol

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of nurse-led motivational interviewing (MI) in routine diabetes care in general practice is inconclusive. Knowledge about the extent to which nurses apply MI skills and the factors that affect the usage can help to understand the black box of this intervention. The current study compared MI skills of trained versus non-trained general practice nurses in diabetes consultations. The nurses participated in a cluster randomized trial in which a comprehensive program (including MI training) was tested on improving clinical parameters, lifestyle, patients' readiness to change lifestyle, and quality of life.

methodsFifty-eight general practices were randomly assigned to usual care (35 nurses) or the intervention (30 nurses). The ratings of applying 24 MI skills (primary outcome) were based on five consultation recordings per nurse at baseline and 14 months later. Two judges evaluated independently the MI skills and the consultation characteristics time, amount of nurse communication, amount of lifestyle discussion and patients' readiness to change. The effect of the training on the MI skills was analysed with a multilevel linear regression by comparing baseline and the one-year follow-up between the interventions with usual care group. The overall effect of the consultation characteristics on the MI skills was studied in a multilevel regression analyses.

resultsAt one year follow up, it was demonstrated that the nurses improved on 2 of the 24 MI skills, namely, "inviting the patient to talk about behaviour change" (mean difference=0.39, p=0.009), and "assessing patient's confidence in changing their lifestyle" (mean difference=0.28, p=0.037). Consultation time and the amount of lifestyle discussion as well as the patients' readiness to change health behaviour was associated positively with applying MI skills.

conclusionsThe maintenance of the MI skills one year after the training program was minimal. The question is whether the success of MI to change unhealthy behaviour must be doubted, whether the technique is less suitable for patients with a complex chronic disease, such as diabetes mellitus, or that nurses have problems with the acquisition and maintenance of MI skills in daily practice. Overall, performing MI skills during consultation increases, if there is more time, more lifestyle discussion, and the patients show more readiness to change.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68707773.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceMotivational InterviewingCluster AnalysisDiabetes MellitusEducation, Nursing, ContinuingHumansInservice TrainingNurse-Patient RelationsNurses

Identifiers

PMID23537327
PMCPMC3637576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.