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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |