Comparing process evaluations of motivational interviewing interventions for managing health conditions and health promotions: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how process evaluations were conducted alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving motivational interviewing (MI) as an intervention to manage health conditions. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. We searched 7 databases (to May 2021) for studies that incorporated at least one aspect of process evaluation of RCTs using MI to manage a health condition. Two reviewers screened the studies for eligibility and extracted data according to Medical Research Council framework. RESULTS: Of the 123 studies included, 85% lacked a theoretical framework for process evaluation. Most studies reported fidelity, but dose was underreported. Sixty-five studies reported mechanism of impact, but only twelve used participant experiences to understand how MI works. Only thirty used true mediation analysis. Context (n = 33) was the least reported aspect of process evaluation. CONCLUSION: Process evaluations of MI to manage health conditions often consist of fragmented reports of implementation, mechanisms, and context. Using validated measures of fidelity, reporting dose, and using mediation analysis alongside qualitative exploration of participant and stakeholder insights will improve our understanding of how MI works. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Robust and comprehensive process evaluations will inform MI researchers to design more rigorous trials and for clinicians to implement more effective interventions for their clients.

Gently steering - the mechanism of how motivational interviewing supported walking after hip fracture: A qualitative study.

Objective: To explore how older adults perceive motivational interviewing influences their walking and physical activity after hip fracture. Methods: Qualitative study using an interpretive description framework. Twenty-four participants aged ≥65 years living in the community after hip fracture were interviewed. Participants had received at least 8 sessions of motivational interviewing via telephone. Semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded inductively by two researchers independently. All authors discussed findings and themes observed through the researchers' lens and mapped them to the Medical Research Council's framework for process evaluation. Results: Motivational interviewing was described as a nuanced and subtle intervention that guided participants through their journey of recovery. Three themes described possible mechanisms of how motivational interviewing might work: connection, checking in and confidence. In the context of recovering from hip fracture psychologically and physically, a strong connection with clinicians, along with weekly checking in, were perceived to build participants' confidence to walk after hip fracture. Conclusion: This study provided insight on participant perceptions of how motivational interviewing might work to support walking after hip fracture. Innovation: The addition of motivational interviewing to rehabilitation is a novel way of building confidence to walk for people recovering from hip fracture.

Motivational interviewing with community-dwelling older adults after hip fracture (MIHip): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Community-dwelling people recovering from hip fracture have the physical capacity to walk in their community but lack the confidence to do so. The primary aim of this trial is to determine whether motivational interviewing increases time spent walking at 12 months in community-dwelling people after hip fracture compared with an attention placebo control group. Secondary aims are to evaluate cost effectiveness, patient and health service outcomes and to complete a process evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An assessor-blinded parallel group randomised controlled design with embedded health economic evaluation and process evaluation will compare the effects of n=270 participants randomly allocated to an experimental group (motivational interviewing) or a control group (dietary advice). For inclusion, participants are aged ≥65 years, living at home independently within 6 months of discharge from hospital after hip fracture and able to walk independently and communicate with conversational English. Key exclusion criteria are severe depression or anxiety, impaired intellectual functioning and being medically unstable to walk. Participants allocated to the experimental group will receive 10 (8 weekly and 2 booster) telephone-based sessions of motivational interviewing to increase walking over 16 weeks. Participants allocated to the control group will receive an equivalent dose of telephone-based dietary advice. The primary outcome is daily time spent walking over 7 days assessed at weeks 0, 9, 26 and 52. Secondary outcomes include measures of psychological-related function, mobility-related function, community participation, health-related quality of life and falls. Health service utilisation and associated costs will be assessed. Process evaluation will assess the fidelity of the motivational interviewing intervention and explore contextual factors through semistructured interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval obtained from Eastern Health (E19-002), Peninsula Health (50261/EH-2019), Alfred Health (617/20) and La Trobe University (E19/002/50261). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and public seminars. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619000936123.