Application of motivational interviewing to prenatal smoking cessation: training and implementation issues
- Mary M Velasqueza,
- Jacklyn Hechtb,
- Virginia P Quinnc,
- Karen M Emmonsd,
- Carlo C DiClementee,
- Patricia Dolan-Mullenf
- aDepartment of Family Practice and Community Medicine, University of Texas-Houston Medical School, Houston, Texas, USA, bCenter for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine, Miriam Hospital, cKaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California, USA, dDana Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, eDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland-Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, fCenter for Health Promotion Research and Prevention, University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center, School of Public Health
- Mary M Velasquez, PhD, Department of Family Practice and Community Medicine, University of Texas-Houston Medical School, 6431 Fannin, Suite 2.112, Houston, TX 77030-1501, USA;mvelasquez{at}fpcm.med.uth.tmc.edu
- Received 8 December 1999
- Revised 27 March 2000
- Accepted 5 April 2000
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Three of the Smoke-Free Families projects incorporated motivational interviewing (MI) into prenatal smoking cessation interventions. This paper describes the process involved in training healthcare providers to use MI and the issues encountered in implementing the protocols.
DESIGN Health care providers at all three sites attended local training workshops in which they learned to apply the basics of MI to their study protocol. All sites followed a similar outline and schedule for training and monitoring.
SETTINGS The MI interventions were delivered through home visits in Boston, Massachusetts; phone based counselling calls to patients' homes in Southern California; and in urban and rural prenatal clinics throughout East Texas.
PARTICIPANTS Public health nurse and social work case managers, who were already employed by health care agencies, delivered the MI interventions.
MEASURES Pre- and postintervention assessments and feedback from trainers and investigators at all three sites.
RESULTS Providers were enthusiastic about the training workshops, which they rated as effective in preparing them to deliver the intervention. Barriers to implementation included difficulty in contacting patients and competing demands on providers' time.
CONCLUSIONS Conducting initial training for providers is the first step in developing skills to deliver motivational interventions. Additional time and resources are needed for ongoing skill building and monitoring of intervention delivery.
