Motivational Interviewing: A Case Study

849 Words2 Pages

Motivational Interviewing
Motivational interviewing (MI) was developed in 1983 from a personal experience of one of the therapist, and it has been used since then. The definition of MI changed over the years. Currently, it is an evidence-based practice in the treatment of substance abuse users. This method focuses on establishing a collaborative guideline, based on patient’s values, to motivate the person for internal exploring of the issue and resolving it (MI, n.d)
Besides substance abuse, MI is a good method to include in the plan of care for patients with chronic health issues. Many of these chronic diseases such as diabetes can lead to mortality and can increase the cost of the health care as a whole. At the same time, many of these diseases …show more content…

Then professional coaches who were trained for MI programs started to coach participants mostly via telephone communication with the option of face to face interactions upon participants’ requests. The initial session was 30–40 minutes with follow-up sections lasting about 10–20 minutes. The number of follow-up sections was not limited and was based on participant’s risk profile, requirements and interests. The topic of discussion on each section was chosen by the participant from the menu that was created by the therapist based on participant’s risk profile. There was also a category named “other” on the menu which would give the participant the autonomy to choose a topic that was not on the menu but would be helpful increasing intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and patient activation and readiness to change (Linden, Butterworth, & Prochaska, 2010, p. 167).
Description of How Were the Participants Tested
The study tested several outcomes including self-efficacy for managing chronic illness, the patient activation measure (PAM), perceived global health status score, self-assessment of most important behavior change for participant’s health or quality of life, and risk status in this identified area based on readiness to change. Each participant took a survey twice before and after the program, and the scores were subtracted from each other. Then the net result was used for comparison between the participants and non-participant (Linden, Butterworth, & Prochaska, 2010, p. 168).
Description of the

Open Document