Training physicians in motivational communication: An integrated knowledge transfer study protocol.

OBJECTIVE: While behavior change counseling (BCC) targeting health risk behaviors has shown efficacy for improving patient health outcomes, barriers to knowledge translation have resulted in poor uptake among health care providers (HCPs). This article outlines the development of a new BCC training framework for HCPs, from inception to readiness for efficacy testing. It provides an example of integrated knowledge translation (iKT) used in alignment with the obesity-related behavioral intervention trials model. METHOD: (a) A modified Delphi process identified essential BCC skills for HCPs; (b) a survey assessed HCP attitudes and training needs; (c) an online competency assessment tool was developed using iKT mixed methods; (d) a training program was developed and refined using a logic model; and (e) the program was optimized using iterative rounds of participant feedback. A future proof-of-concept trial (f) will determine the program's readiness for full efficacy testing. RESULTS: A Delphi panel (n = 46) identified 11 core BCC competencies for HCPs, defining "motivational communication." The HCP survey (n = 80) showed willingness to devote 4 hr to introductory training in BCC. The Motivational Communication Competency Assessment Test (MC-CAT: an online, interactive evaluation tool) and a motivational communication training program (MOTIVATOR: accredited for continuing education by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada) were collaboratively developed with knowledge users. The optimization process (n = 11) provided key feedback, with minor changes being made to the program. CONCLUSIONS: In developing a new BCC framework, obstacles to BCC implementation were addressed through an iterative iKT process. This should improve eventual intervention uptake. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Identifying priority questions regarding rapid systematic reviews' methods: protocol for an eDelphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid systematic reviews (RRs) have the potential to provide timely information to decision-makers, thus directly impacting healthcare. However, consensus regarding the most efficient approaches to performing RRs and the presence of several unaddressed methodological issues pose challenges. With such a large potential research agenda for RRs, it is unclear what should be prioritised. OBJECTIVE: To elicit a consensus from RR experts and interested parties on what are the most important methodological questions (from the generation of the question to the writing of the report) for the field to address in order to guide the effective and efficient development of RRs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An eDelphi study will be conducted. Researchers with experience in evidence synthesis and other interested parties (eg, knowledge users, patients, community members, policymaker, industry, journal editors and healthcare providers) will be invited to participate. The following steps will be taken: (1) a core group of experts in evidence synthesis will generate the first list of items based on the available literature; (2) using LimeSurvey, participants will be invited to rate and rank the importance of suggested RR methodological questions. Questions with open format responses will allow for modifications to the wording of items or the addition of new items; (3) three survey rounds will be performed asking participants to re-rate items, with items deemed of low importance being removed at each round; (4) a list of items will be generated with items believed to be of high importance by ≥75% of participants being included and (5) this list will be discussed at an online consensus meeting that will generate a summary document containing the final priority list. Data analysis will be performed using raw numbers, means and frequencies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Concordia University Human Research Ethics Committee (#30015229). Both traditional, for example, scientific conference presentations and publication in scientific journals, and non-traditional, for example, lay summaries and infographics, knowledge translation products will be created.

Assessing Physician's Motivational Communication Skills: 5-Step Mixed Methods Development Study of the Motivational Communication Competency Assessment Test.

BACKGROUND: Training physicians to provide effective behavior change counseling using approaches such as motivational communication (MC) is an important aspect of noncommunicable chronic disease prevention and management. However, existing evaluation tools for MC skills are complex, invasive, time consuming, and impractical for use within the medical context. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to develop and validate a short web-based tool for evaluating health care provider (HCP) skills in MC-the Motivational Communication Competency Assessment Test (MC-CAT). METHODS: Between 2016 and 2021, starting with a set of 11 previously identified core MC competencies and using a 5-step, mixed methods, integrated knowledge translation approach, the MC-CAT was created by developing a series of 4 base cases and a scoring scheme, validating the base cases and scoring scheme with international experts, creating 3 alternative versions of the 4 base cases (to create a bank of 16 cases, 4 of each type of base case) and translating the cases into French, integrating the cases into the web-based MC-CAT platform, and conducting initial internal validity assessments with university health students. RESULTS: The MC-CAT assesses MC competency in 20 minutes by presenting HCPs with 4 out of a possible 16 cases (randomly selected and ordered) addressing various behavioral targets (eg, smoking, physical activity, diet, and medication adherence). Individual and global competency scores were calculated automatically for the 11 competency items across the 4 cases, providing automatic scores out of 100. From the factorial analysis of variance for the difference in competency and ranking scores, no significant differences were identified between the different case versions across individual and global competency (P=.26 to P=.97) and ranking scores (P=.24 to P=.89). The initial tests of internal consistency for rank order among the 24 student participants were in the acceptable range (α=.78). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that MC-CAT is an internally valid tool to facilitate the evaluation of MC competencies among HCPs and is ready to undergo comprehensive psychometric property analyses with a national sample of health care providers. Once psychometric property assessments have been completed, this tool is expected to facilitate the assessment of MC skills among HCPs, skills that will better support patients in adopting healthier lifestyles, which will significantly reduce the personal, social, and economic burdens of noncommunicable chronic diseases.

An international Delphi consensus study to define motivational communication in the context of developing a training program for physicians.

Poor health behaviors (e.g., smoking, poor diet, and physical inactivity) are major risk factors for noncommunicable chronic diseases (NCDs). Evidence supporting traditional advice-giving approaches to promote behavior change is weak or short lived. Training physicians to improve their behavior change counseling/communication skills is important, yet the evidence for the efficacy and acceptability of existing training programs is lacking and there is little consensus on the core competencies that physicians should master in the context of NCD management. The purpose of this study is to generate an acceptable, evidence-based, stakeholder-informed list of the core communication competencies that physicians should master in the context of NCD management. Using a modified Delphi process for consensus achievement, international behavior change experts, physicians, and allied health care professionals completed four phases of research, including eight rounds of online surveys and in-person meetings over 2 years (n = 13-17 participated in Phases I, III, and IV and n = 39-46 in Phase II). Eleven core communication competencies were identified: reflective listening, expressing empathy, demonstrating acceptance, tolerance, and respect, responding to resistance, (not) negatively judging or blaming, (not) expressing hostility or impatience, eliciting "change-talk"/evocation, (not) being argumentative or confrontational, setting goals, being collaborative, and providing information neutrally. These competencies were used to define a unified approach for conducting behavior change counseling in medical settings: Motivational Communication. The results may be used to inform and standardize physician training in behavior change counseling and communication skills to reduce morbidity and mortality related to poor health behaviors in the context of NCD prevention and management.