Cargando…

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate potential barriers and facilitators for implementing motivational interviewing (MI) as a return to work (RTW) intervention in a Norwegian social insurance setting. Methods A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Foldal, Vegard Stolsmo, Solbjør, Marit, Standal, Martin Inge, Fors, Egil Andreas, Hagen, Roger, Bagøien, Gunnhild, Johnsen, Roar, Hara, Karen Walseth, Fossen, Heidi, Løchting, Ida, Eik, Hedda, Grotle, Margreth, Aasdahl, Lene
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8558277/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09964-9
_version_ 1784592521303687168
author Foldal, Vegard Stolsmo
Solbjør, Marit
Standal, Martin Inge
Fors, Egil Andreas
Hagen, Roger
Bagøien, Gunnhild
Johnsen, Roar
Hara, Karen Walseth
Fossen, Heidi
Løchting, Ida
Eik, Hedda
Grotle, Margreth
Aasdahl, Lene
author_facet Foldal, Vegard Stolsmo
Solbjør, Marit
Standal, Martin Inge
Fors, Egil Andreas
Hagen, Roger
Bagøien, Gunnhild
Johnsen, Roar
Hara, Karen Walseth
Fossen, Heidi
Løchting, Ida
Eik, Hedda
Grotle, Margreth
Aasdahl, Lene
author_sort Foldal, Vegard Stolsmo
collection PubMed
description Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate potential barriers and facilitators for implementing motivational interviewing (MI) as a return to work (RTW) intervention in a Norwegian social insurance setting. Methods A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial involving MI sessions delivered by social insurance caseworkers. The study was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework using focus groups with the caseworkers. MI fidelity was evaluated through audio-recordings of MI sessions and questionnaires to sick-listed participants. Results Lack of co-worker and managerial support, time and place for practicing to further develop MI skills, and a high workload made the MI intervention challenging for the caseworkers. The MI method was experienced as useful, but difficult to master. MI fidelity results showed technical global scores over the threshold for “beginning proficiency” whereas the relational global score was under the threshold. The sick-listed workers reported being satisfied with the MI sessions. Conclusions Despite caseworker motivation for learning and using MI in early follow-up sessions, MI was hard to master and use in practice. Several barriers and facilitators were identified; these should be addressed before implementing MI in a social insurance setting. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03212118 (registered July 11, 2017).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8558277
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85582772021-11-15 Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation Foldal, Vegard Stolsmo Solbjør, Marit Standal, Martin Inge Fors, Egil Andreas Hagen, Roger Bagøien, Gunnhild Johnsen, Roar Hara, Karen Walseth Fossen, Heidi Løchting, Ida Eik, Hedda Grotle, Margreth Aasdahl, Lene J Occup Rehabil Article Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate potential barriers and facilitators for implementing motivational interviewing (MI) as a return to work (RTW) intervention in a Norwegian social insurance setting. Methods A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial involving MI sessions delivered by social insurance caseworkers. The study was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework using focus groups with the caseworkers. MI fidelity was evaluated through audio-recordings of MI sessions and questionnaires to sick-listed participants. Results Lack of co-worker and managerial support, time and place for practicing to further develop MI skills, and a high workload made the MI intervention challenging for the caseworkers. The MI method was experienced as useful, but difficult to master. MI fidelity results showed technical global scores over the threshold for “beginning proficiency” whereas the relational global score was under the threshold. The sick-listed workers reported being satisfied with the MI sessions. Conclusions Despite caseworker motivation for learning and using MI in early follow-up sessions, MI was hard to master and use in practice. Several barriers and facilitators were identified; these should be addressed before implementing MI in a social insurance setting. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03212118 (registered July 11, 2017). Springer US 2021-03-24 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8558277/ /pubmed/33761083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09964-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Foldal, Vegard Stolsmo
Solbjør, Marit
Standal, Martin Inge
Fors, Egil Andreas
Hagen, Roger
Bagøien, Gunnhild
Johnsen, Roar
Hara, Karen Walseth
Fossen, Heidi
Løchting, Ida
Eik, Hedda
Grotle, Margreth
Aasdahl, Lene
Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation
title Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation
title_full Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation
title_fullStr Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation
title_short Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation
title_sort barriers and facilitators for implementing motivational interviewing as a return to work intervention in a norwegian social insurance setting: a mixed methods process evaluation
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8558277/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09964-9
work_keys_str_mv AT foldalvegardstolsmo barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT solbjørmarit barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT standalmartininge barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT forsegilandreas barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT hagenroger barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT bagøiengunnhild barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT johnsenroar barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT harakarenwalseth barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT fossenheidi barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT løchtingida barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT eikhedda barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT grotlemargreth barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation
AT aasdahllene barriersandfacilitatorsforimplementingmotivationalinterviewingasareturntoworkinterventioninanorwegiansocialinsurancesettingamixedmethodsprocessevaluation