Motivational Interviewing Curricula Collaborative (MICC): A Comparison of Teaching Modalities Matthew Holley, MA, MS, PhD candidate, Indiana University Scott Renshaw, MD, Indiana University Hillary Mount, MD, University of Cincinnati Linda Chang, PharmD, MPH, BCPS, University of Illinois Rockford Shannon Cooper, BA, Indiana University Laura Gano, MPH, Indiana University

Disclosures No relevant financial relationships during the past 12 months No conflicts of interest to disclose IRB approved

Session Objectives As a result of attending this session, participants will be able to: Discuss different learning modalities; Evaluate the methodology and initial findings from the evaluation data; and Discuss ways to implement similar collaborative projects in your institution.

About the Project IndianaCincinnatiIllinois OnlineHybridLecture N = 248N = 154N = 33

Indiana University: Online Approximately 360 medical students/year Required, decentralized third-year clerkship Asynchronous module Personal application situations Virtual Patient Experience

Online module Objectives: At the end of this learning module, you will be able to: –Define key principles of Motivational Interviewing. –Recognize how principles of Motivational Interviewing can be applied. –Compare and contrast language used by physicians during patient encounters as being consistent with Motivational Interviewing or not. PRE-TEST: MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING (<5 min) INTRODUCTION (5 min) WHY USE MI TECHNIQUES (<5 min) HUMAN BEHAVIOR CHANGE (20 min) INTERVIEWING SKILLS (<30 min) ACTION: STEPS OF A MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEW NEGOTIATING A CHANGE PLAN (<5 min) CONCLUSION (<5 min) POST-TEST: MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING (<5 min) MODULE EVALUATION

University of Cincinnati: Hybrid ~180 students/yr Pre-assessmentOnline modulePatient activityInteractive LecturePost-assessment

University of Cincinnati: Patient Activity Reasons to stay the sameReasons to Change 1. What are the benefits of staying the same? 2. What concerns to you have about staying the same? 3. What concerns to you have if you were to make a change in this habit? 4. What are the benefits of changing this unhealthy habit? On a scale of 0-10, how important is it to you to change the behavior (0=not important at all, 10=very important)? * Additional rulers: How confident are you that you can? How ready are you?

University of Cincinnati: Hybrid Patient activity: Grading rubric Less than 50% complete Exhibits little interest in the activity and minimal effort put forth to facilitate the discussion 0 >50% complete Exhibits some effort to facilitate the discussion with the patient % complete Exhibits an interest in attaining motivational interviewing skills by facilitating real discussion with the patient 5.0

University of Cincinnati: Hybrid Interactive lecture: –Review highlights of module –Debrief patient activity –Partner-grading –Role play activity

University of Illinois: F2F 62 M2 students –Interactive MI lectures Brief overview Patient cases – in classroom Worked with a health mentor (outside the classroom) 55 M3 students –Psychiatry clerkship –On-line MI module (only 50% completed the module)

Preliminary Findings Pre-Assessment Of the following, I learn best by having information presented in the following format:

Preliminary Findings Pre-Assessment How familiar are you with motivational interviewing and its usage? *p<.0001

Post-Assessment Findings All Institutions 1. The information in this learning experience was useful to my future work as a physician. 2. This learning unit was a worthwhile investment of my time 3. My clinical skills in counseling patients about behavioral changes will improve as a result of completing this learning experience 4. I would recommend this learning unit be used with future medical students 5. How much new information did you learn from this learning experience 6. As a result of completing this experience, I have a better understanding of the motivational interviewing technique (not IU) 7. At this point in my medical education, I am prepared to use motivational interviewing with patients.

As a result of this learning experience, I am more prepared to use MI with my patients.

Keys to Collaboration STFM Common evaluation tools Divided responsibilities Same evaluation template

Challenges Institutional support for curriculum change (UC) Content not exact; worked together to find common ground Variable familiarity of students w/MI Different learning style preferences of students Implementation of assessments (UC problem)

Going forward Further data gathering Secondary analysis Feedback from students Publish?

Please evaluate this session at: stfm.org/sessionevaluation