Evidence for motivational interviewing in educational settings among medical schools : a scoping review

• Main Authors: Leonard Lei, Yik Chuan, Chew, Keng Sheng, Chai, Chee Shee, Chen, Yoke Yong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Springer Nature 2024
• Subjects: R Medicine (General)
• Online Access: http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/45599/1/s12909-024-05845-w.pdf; http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/45599/; https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-024-05845-w; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05845-w

Background Motivational interviewing (MI) is a person-centred approach focused on empowering and motivating individuals for behavioural change. Medical students can utilize MI in patient education to engage with patients’ chronic health ailments and maladaptive behaviours. A current scoping review was conducted to 1) determine the types of MI (conventional, adapted, brief and group MI) education programs in medical schools, delivery modalities and teaching methods used; 2) classify educational outcomes on the basis of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy; and 3) determine the key elements of MI education via the FRAMES (feedback, responsibility, advice, menu of options, empathy, self-efficacy) model. Methods This scoping review was conducted via the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley. Two online databases, CINAHL and MEDLINE Complete, were searched to identify MI interventions in medical education. Further articles were selected from bibliography lists and the Google Scholar search engine. Results From an initial yield of 2019 articles, 19 articles were included. First, there appears to be a bimodal distribution of most articles published between the two time periods of 2004--2008 and 2019--2023. Second, all the studies included in this review did not use conventional MI but instead utilized a variety of MI adaptation techniques. Third, most studies used face-to-face training in MI, whereas only one study used online delivery. Fourth, most studies have used a variety of interactive experiences to teach MI. Next, all studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 2, but only 4 studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 3. According to the FRAMES model, all studies (n=19; 100%) reported the elements of responsibility and advice. The element that was reported the least was self-efficacy (n = 12; 63.1%). Conclusion Our findings suggest that motivational interviewing can be taught effectively in medical schools via adaptations to MI and a variety of teaching approaches. However, there is a need for further research investigating standardized MI training across medical schools, the adequate dose for training in MI and the implementation of reflective practices. Future studies may benefit from exploring and better understanding the relationship between MI and self-efficacy in their MI interventions.