| Title |
Motivational interviewing for adherence: post-training attitudes and perceptions of physicians who treat asthma patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s127645 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miguel Román-Rodríguez, Lara Ibarrola-Ruiz, Fernando Mora, Vicente Plaza, Joaquín Sastre, Alfonso Torrego, José María Vega, Guadalupe Sánchez-Herrero |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of health care professionals (HCPs) who have been trained in motivational interviewing (MI) to improve adherence. Another objective of this study was to compare groups of HCPs with different levels of training in adherence (trained vs untrained; previous training in adherence education [AdhE] vs specific training in MI). For this study, a national questionnaire-based survey was conducted among HCPs treating asthma. A total of 360 HCPs were surveyed (allergists: n=110; pulmonologists: n=120; general practitioners: n=130). Of them, 180 physicians had received a training intervention (training in AdhE: n=90; training in MI to promote adherence: n=90). Of the total surveyed HCPs, 92.8% reported adherence is highly important in asthma control. More professionals trained in MI compared to those trained in AdhE considered that "simplifying treatment as far as possible" (85.6% vs 68.9%, P=0.0077), "involving the patient in treatment plans" (85.6% vs 71.1%, P=0.0187), "giving the patient self-care patterns" (52.2% vs 36.7%, P=0.0357) and "performing MI" (42.2% vs 15.6%, P<0.0001) were the most important interventions to promote adherence. "Empathy between doctor and patient" (93.3% vs 77.8%, P=0.0036) and "concordance of medical and patient treatment goals" (96.7% vs 72.2%, P<0.0001) were the factors perceived as having the greatest influence in improving adherence to asthma treatment by the physicians in the MI group as opposed to those in the AdhE group. The use of MI in asthma consultation was the most highly valued resource to promote adherence to treatment among all the professionals, particularly those who had received specific MI training compared to those who had received any kind of previous training in AdhE (96.7% vs 66.7%, P<0.0001). MI is considered an important tool to promote adherence to asthma treatment among HCPs, especially among those specifically trained in that aspect. MI training interventions seem to influence HCPs' approaches to improve self-care and to engage patients in treatment plans rather than approaches solely centered on AdhE. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 26% |
| Unknown | 12 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2017.
All research outputs
#16,033,957
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#873
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,771
of 325,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#29
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.