Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28750067›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

The dissemination of motivational interviewing in Swedish county councils: Results of a randomized controlled trial.

Maria Beckman, Lars Forsberg, Helena Lindqvist, Margarita Diez, Johanna Enö Persson, Ata Ghaderi

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Maria BeckmanDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9370-1863
Lars ForsbergMIC Lab AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Helena LindqvistCenter for Psychiatry Research and Education, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden.
Margarita DiezDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Johanna Enö PerssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ata GhaderiDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA significant number of Swedish practitioners are offered workshop trainings in motivational interviewing through community-based implementation programs. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate to what extent the practitioners acquire and retain skills from additional supervision consisting of feedback based on monitoring of practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 174 practitioners in five county councils across Sweden were randomized to one of the study's two groups: 1) Regular county council workshop training, 2) Regular county council workshop training followed by six sessions of supervision. The participant's mean age was 43.3 years, and the majority were females (88.1%).

resultsRecruiting participants proved difficult, which may have led to a biased sample of practitioners highly motivated to learn the method. Although slightly different in form and content, all the workshop trainings increased the participants' skills to the same level. Also, consistent with previous research, the additional supervision group showed larger gains in proficiency compared to the group who received workshop training only at the six-month follow-up. However, analyses showed generally maintained levels of skills for all the participants at the follow-up assessment, and the majority of participants did not attain beginning proficiency levels at either post-workshop or follow-up.

conclusionsThe results of this study address the real-life implications of dissemination of evidence-based practices. The maintained level of elevated skills for all participants is a promising finding. However, the low interest for obtaining additional supervision among the Swedish practitioners is problematic. In addition, neither the workshop trainings nor the additional supervision, although improving skills, were sufficient for most of the participants to reach beginning proficiency levels. This raises questions regarding the most efficient form of training to attain and sustain adequate practice standards, and how to create incentive and interest among practitioners to participate in such training.

Indexed as

Motivational InterviewingAdultEducation, Medical, GraduateFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationMaleMiddle AgedQuality ImprovementSweden

Identifiers

PMID28750067
PMCPMC5531530

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.