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.

Understanding factors associated with vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping literature review.

Due to higher risk of complications associated with vaccine-preventable infections (e.g., influenza, pneumococcus), patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are a priority group for vaccination. However, vaccination rates among RA patients are low, indicating a need to understand the determinants of vaccine hesitancy in this group. This study conducted an evidence synthesis of various stakeholders' (patients, physicians/rheumatologists) perspectives about the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and uptake among patients with RA. We searched three bibliographic and reference databases (PUBMED, PsychINFO, and SCOPUS) for relevant English or French articles published in peer-reviewed journals through July 2019 that conducted either qualitative or quantitative assessments of vaccine hesitancy or uptake. Key themes associated with vaccination hesitancy themes according to different stakeholders were extracted and summarized. Of 783 unique citations, 16 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (78%; n = 134,787 RA patients) examined barriers reported by patients, 13% (n = 114) by rheumatologists. Two principal themes and six sub-themes associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified among both patients and rheumatologists: 'social and contextual factors' (including healthcare policies, access to care/high patient loads, and social/media influences) and 'patient and provider factors' (including patient understanding of benefits and risks, provider awareness of guidelines and perceived responsibility for vaccination, and implementation challenges). Determinants of vaccine hesitancy and uptake in RA identified by different stakeholders implicate patient-, provider-, and healthcare system­related factors. This information is relevant for the design of interventions that target improving vaccine uptake in RA patients.

Evaluation of Communication Skills Among Physicians: A Systematic Review of Existing Assessment Tools.

OBJECTIVE: The importance of physician training in communication skills for motivating patients to adopt a healthy life-style and optimize clinical outcomes is increasingly recognized. This study inventoried and systematically reviewed the psychometric properties of, and the skills assessed by, existing assessment tools used to evaluate communication skills among physicians. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42018091932). Four databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and SCOPUS) were searched up to December 2018, generating 3902 unique articles, which were screened by two authors. A total of 57 articles met the inclusion criteria and underwent full data extraction. RESULTS: Forty-five different assessment tools were identified. Only 47% of the studies mentioned underlying theories or models for designing the tool. Fifteen communication skills were assessed across the tools, the five most prevalent were information giving (46%) or gathering (40%), eliciting patients' perspectives (44%), planning/goal setting (37%), and closing the session (32%). Most tools (93%) assessed communication skills using in-person role play exercises with standardized (61%) or real (32%) patients, but only 54% described the expertise of the raters who performed the evaluations. Overall, reporting of the psychometric properties of the assessment tools was poor-moderate (4.5 ± 1.3 out of 9). CONCLUSIONS: Despite identifying several existing physician communication assessment tools, a high degree of heterogeneity between these tools, in terms of skills assessed and study quality, was observed, and most have been poorly validated. Research is needed to rigorously develop and validate accessible, convenient, "user-friendly," and easy to administer and score communication assessment tools.

Aerobic exercise alleviates depressive symptoms in patients with a major non-communicable chronic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether aerobic exercise was superior to usual care in alleviating depressive symptoms in patients living with a major non-communicable disease. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from online databases (PubMed, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus) as well as from reference lists. The search and collection of eligible studies was conducted up to 18 October 2018 (PROSPERO registration number CRD42017069089). STUDY SELECTION: We included interventions that compared aerobic exercise with usual care in adults who reported depressive symptoms (ie, not necessarily the clinical diagnosis of depression) and were living with a major non-communicable disease. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis (4111 patients). Aerobic exercise alleviated depressive symptoms better than did usual care (standardised mean difference (SMD)=0.50; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.76; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation: low quality). Aerobic exercise was particularly effective in alleviating depressive symptoms in cardiac patients (SMD=0.67; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: Aerobic exercise alleviated depressive symptoms in patients living with a major non-communicable disease, particularly in cardiac populations. Whether aerobic exercise treats clinically diagnosed depression was outside the scope of this study.

Correction to: Interventions to improve vaccine acceptance among rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review.

The original version of this article contained error. Table 1 was shown in the wrong version, thus corrected table is shown in this article.

Interventions to improve vaccine acceptance among rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: National guidelines emphasize the importance of annual immunization for patients living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but vaccination rates remain suboptimal in this population. Evaluating the efficacy of patient and/or provider-targeted interventions to improve vaccination uptake among RA patients could inform practice. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review (SR) to examine the efficacy of interventions (exposure) aiming to improve vaccination uptake in patients with RA (outcome). English and French language, peer-reviewed interventional studies to improve vaccination rates in RA patients published between 2009 and 2018 were included. RESULTS: The search yielded a total of 450 records. Five articles met inclusion criteria. All interventions focused on changing provider behavior using some form of vaccination reminder as the primary intervention strategy, though only two studies reported provider prescribing behavior as an outcome (which was 4% and 58%). Overall, studies varied greatly regarding intervention delivery mode (e.g., educational sessions, e-mail reminders, best practice alerts), and behavior change techniques used to encourage providers to prescribe vaccination (e.g., feedback and monitoring, shaping knowledge, self-regulation). For influenza, pneumococcal and herpes zoster, post-intervention (mean 12-16 months follow-up) vaccination rates increased by a mean of 16.6% (± 15.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to enhance vaccine uptake in RA focused almost exclusively on improving provider prescription of vaccines using reminder-type interventions. Although effective in improving vaccination rates, those studies used heterogeneous interventions and behavior change techniques. Few studies measured provider prescribing behavior as an outcome. Future studies targeting providers should measure relevant provided-related outcomes and their impact on patient outcomes, to determine overall efficacy.