Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Oct 1;3(10):e2017348.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.17348.

Virtual Standardized Patients vs Academic Training for Learning Motivational Interviewing Skills in the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Military: A Randomized Trial

Greg M Reger  1   2 , Aaron M Norr  2   3 , Albert Skip Rizzo  4 , Patrick Sylvers  1   2 , Jessica Peltan  1   5 , Daniel Fischer  1 , Matthew Trimmer  4 , Shelan Porter  1 , Pamela Gant  1 , John S Baer  1   6
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Virtual Standardized Patients vs Academic Training for Learning Motivational Interviewing Skills in the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Military: A Randomized Trial

Greg M Reger et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Despite the need for effective and scalable training in motivational interviewing (MI) that includes posttraining coaching and feedback, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of using virtual (computerized) standardized patients (VSPs) in such training.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of training with a VSP on the acquisition and maintenance of MI skills compared with traditional academic study.

Design, setting, and participants: This study was a 2-group, parallel-training randomized trial of 120 volunteer health care professionals recruited from a Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense medical facility. Motivational interviewing skill was coded by external experts blinded to training group and skill assessment time points. Data were collected from October 17, 2016, to August 12, 2019.

Interventions: After a computer course on MI, participants trained during two 45-minute sessions separated by 3 months. The 2 randomized training conditions included a branching storyline VSP, which provided MI skill rehearsal with immediate and summative feedback, and a control condition, which included academic study of content from the computerized MI course.

Main outcomes and measures: Measurement of MI skill was based on recorded conversations with human standardized patients, assessed using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 coding system, measured at baseline, after training, and after additional training in the randomized condition 3 months later.

Results: A total of 120 volunteers (83 [69%] women), with a mean (SD) of 13.6 (10.3) years of health care experience, participated in the study; 61 were randomized to receive the intervention, and 59 were randomized to the control group. Those assigned to VSP training had significantly greater posttraining improvement in technical global scores (0.23; 95% CI, 0.03-0.44; P = .02), relational global scores (0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81; P = .001), and the reflection-to-question ratio (0.23; 95% CI, 0.15-0.31; P = .001). Differences were maintained after the 3-month additional training session, with more improvements achieved after the 3-month training for the VSP trainees on the reflection-to- question ratio (0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.24; P = .001).

Conclusions and relevance: This randomized trial demonstrated a successful transfer of training from a VSP to human standardized patients. The VSP MI skill outcomes were better than those achieved with academic study and were maintained over time. Virtual standardized patients have the potential to facilitate dissemination of MI and may be useful for training in other evidence-based skills and treatments.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04558060.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Reger and coauthors conducted this work as part of their paid employment with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr Reger reported receiving grant funding (no salary support or personal payment) from the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command to support the conduct of the study and is expected to receive royalties for editing a book on using technology in clinical practice for Routledge. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flow of Participants Through the Study
MI indicates motivational interviewing; VSP, virtual standardized patient.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Percentages of Health Care Professionals Who Met Motivational Interviewing (MI) Proficiency Criteria at Each Time Point
MITI indicates Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity 4.2.1; VSP, virtual standardized patient.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change. 3rd ed Guilford Press; 2013.
    1. Rubak S, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Christensen B. Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(513):305-312. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lundahl B, Burke BL. The effectiveness and applicability of motivational interviewing: a practice-friendly review of four meta-analyses. J Clin Psychol. 2009;65(11):1232-1245. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20638 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lundahl BW, Kunz C, Brownell C, Tollefson D, Burke BL. A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: twenty-five years of empirical studies. Res Soc Work Pract. 2010;20(2):137-160. doi: 10.1177/1049731509347850 - DOI
    1. Sayegh CS, Huey SJ Jr, Zara EJ, Jhaveri K. Follow-up treatment effects of contingency management and motivational interviewing on substance use: a meta-analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2017;31(4):403-414. doi: 10.1037/adb0000277 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data