+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing

Plos One 10(9): E0137581-E0137581

To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0.52, CI 0.28 to 0.96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0.66, CI 0.46 to 0.96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0.40, CI 0.20 to 0.80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. ISRCTN16059206.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058755232

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26422235

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137581

Related references

The prevention access and risk taking in young people (PARTY) project protocol: a cluster randomised controlled trial of health risk screening and motivational interviewing for young people presenting to general practice. Bmc Public Health 12(): 400-400, 2014

Training primary care clinicians in motivational interviewing: a comparison of two models. Patient Education and Counseling 98(1): 61-68, 2016

Does training in motivational interviewing for community pharmacists improve outcomes for methadone patients? A cluster randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 22(1): 4-12, 2015

Screening older people for impaired vision in primary care: cluster randomised trial. Bmj 327(7422): 1027-1027, 2003

Motivational interviewing improves depression outcome in primary care: A cluster randomized trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 84(11): 993-1007, 2016

Minimal improvement of nurses' motivational interviewing skills in routine diabetes care one year after training: a cluster randomized trial. Bmc Family Practice 14: 44-44, 2013

Measuring the quality of motivational interviewing in primary health care encounters: The development and validation of the motivational interviewing assessment scale (MIAS). European Journal of General Practice 22(3): 182-188, 2016

Cluster randomised trial of the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for universal prevention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 114(2-3): 177-184, 2012

Enhanced maternal and child health nurse care for women experiencing intimate partner/family violence: protocol for MOVE, a cluster randomised trial of screening and referral in primary health care. Bmc Public Health 12: 811-811, 2013

Effectiveness of motivational interviewing to improve therapeutic adherence in patients over 65 years old with chronic diseases: A cluster randomized clinical trial in primary care. Patient Education and Counseling 98(8): 977-983, 2015

Integration of oral health in primary health care through motivational interviewing for mothers of young children: A pilot study. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 36(1): 86-92, 2018

Improving help-seeking for postnatal depression and anxiety: a cluster randomised controlled trial of motivational interviewing. Archives of Women's Mental Health 20(6): 791-801, 2017

Learning motivational interviewing: Exploring primary health care nurses' training and counselling experiences. Health Education Journal 67(2): 102-109, 2008

An evaluation of workshop training in motivational interviewing for addiction and mental health clinicians. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 73(1): 99-106, 2003

Training health visitors in cognitive behavioural and person-centred approaches for depression in postnatal women as part of a cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation in primary care: the PoNDER trial. Primary Health Care Research & Development 12(1): 11-20, 2011