Fidelity of a Motivational Interviewing Intervention for Improving Return to Work for People with Musculoskeletal Disorders

Insufficient structure and reporting of process evaluations of complex interventions for musculoskeletal conditions in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To explore how process evaluation of complex interventions alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in musculoskeletal conditions are conducted.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Studies were included if they reported process evaluation conducted alongside RCTs, within the main report or as separate reports, that assessed process evaluation of RCTs of complex nonsurgical and nonpharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. We performed a descriptive analysis of the included studies based on process evaluation parameters.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 61 studies from 17 countries. Our findings showed studies used qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods for process evaluations, typically reporting within the main RCT. Most studies were conducted in primary care settings. Only a few studies (16%) included a theoretical model to guide their process evaluation. Studies reported reach (8%), patients' and clinicians' perceptions of the interventions (44% and 8%, respectively), treatment fidelity and adherence (52% and 43%, respectively), training of patients and clinicians (eg, workshops, manuals and additional training) (54%), how the integration of process evaluation and outcome evaluation findings was performed (68%), barriers to perform the process evaluation (2%), and the strengths and weaknesses of the process evaluation (65%).

CONCLUSION

Reporting of process evaluations within RCTs is insufficiently reported. Researchers rarely adopted a theoretical model or framework to guide their process evaluation. Studies used a variety of methods to conduct process evaluations. We identified barriers, strengths, and weaknesses of methods used for assessing process evaluation as reported by authors from studies included in this review.

Treatment Effect Modifiers for Return-to-Work in Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders

Investigating how individual characteristics modify treatment effects can improve understanding, interpretation, and translation of trial findings. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify treatment effect modifiers of the MI-NAV trial, a 3 arm, parallel randomized controlled trial which compared motivational interviewing and stratified vocational advice intervention in addition to usual case management (UC), to UC alone. This study included (n = 514) participants with musculoskeletal disorders on sick leave for at least 50% of their contracted work hours for at least 7 consecutive weeks with the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. Sickness absence days was the primary outcome, measured from baseline assessment date until the 6-month follow-up. Potential treatment effect modifiers, identified a priori and informed by expert consultation and literature, were evaluated using linear regression models and statistical interaction tests. For motivational interviewing versus UC, age (mean difference [MD] -.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5 to .2; P = .13) and self-perceived health status (MD -.3, 95% CI -.7 to .1; P = .19) were identified as potential effect modifiers (P ≤ .2). For stratified vocational advice intervention versus UC, analgesic medication use (MD -26.2, 95% CI -45.7 to -6.7; P = .009) was identified as a treatment effect modifier (P ≤ .05). These findings may assist in more targeted treatment adaptation and translation as well as the planning of future clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: This secondary analysis of the MI-NAV trial found that analgesic medication use, age, and self-perceived health may modify the effect of 2 vocational interventions on reducing sickness absence in people with musculoskeletal disorders.

Six-month cost-effectiveness of adding motivational interviewing or a stratified vocational advice intervention to usual case management for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: the MI-NAV economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates the six-month cost-effectiveness and cost-benefits of motivational interviewing (MI) or a stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI) added to usual case management (UC) for workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

This study was conducted alongside a three-arm RCT including 514 employed workers on sick leave for at least 50% for ≥ 7 weeks. All participants received UC. The UC + MI group received two MI sessions, and the UC + SVAI group received 1-4 SVAI sessions. Sickness absence days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and societal costs were measured between baseline and six months.

RESULTS

Adding MI to UC, resulted in incremental cost-reduction of -2580EUR (95%CI -5687;612), and a reduction in QALYs of -0.001 (95%CI -0.02;0.01). Secondly, adding MI to UC resulted in an incremental cost-reduction of -538EUR (95%CI -1358;352), and reduction of 5.08 (95%CI -3.3;13.5) sickness-absence days. Financial return estimates were positive, but not statistically significant. Adding SVAI to UC, resulted in an incremental cost-reduction of -2899 EUR (95% CI -5840;18), and a reduction in QALYs of 0.002 (95% CI -0.02;0.01). Secondly, adding SVAI to UC resulted in an statistically significant incremental cost-reduction of -695 EUR (95% CI -1459;-3), and a reduction of 7.9 (95% CI -0.04;15.9) sickness absence days. Financial return estimates were positive and statistically significant. The probabilities of cost-effectiveness for QALYs were high for adding MI or SVAI (ceiling ratio 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to UC only, adding MI to UC tends to be cost-effective. Adding SVAI to UC is cost-effective for workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03871712).

Rehabilitation Coordinators' Experiences of Group Supervision and Training in Motivational Interviewing: A Qualitative Study in Primary Health Care

The goals of this study were to describe how rehabilitation coordinators experienced regular group supervision and training in motivational interviewing and to evaluate whether the supervision and training influenced their self-efficacy in using the communication style. Four sessions that included supervision and training in motivational interviewing were offered to primary health care rehabilitation coordinators in Sweden. Focus group interviews were performed with eight participants, and data were analyzed with thematic analysis. Group supervision and training seemed to increase self-efficacy in using motivational interviewing. Components that contributed to enhancing perceived self-efficacy included a safe group climate, collegial feedback, and time between sessions to reflect on and practice motivational interviewing skills. Submitting motivational interviewing dialogues to a coding lab for objective feedback can be challenging but also can increase self-efficacy. The dropout rate was high. Thus, in the future, the sessions should be modified to reach more professionals while retaining the components that participants said could enhance their self-efficacy. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2023;54(11):533-540.].

Effectiveness of 'motivational interviewing' on sick leave: a randomized controlled trial in a social insurance setting

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) - a counselling approach offered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration (NAV) - on return to work (RTW) for individuals sick-listed for ≥8 weeks due to any diagnoses. MI was compared to usual case management and an active control during 12 months of follow-up.

METHODS

In a randomized clinical trial with three parallel arms, participants were randomized to MI (N=257), usual case management (N=266), or an active control group (N=252). MI consisted of two MI sessions while the active control involved two sessions without MI, both were offered in addition to usual case management. The primary outcome was number of sickness absence days based on registry data. Secondary outcomes included time to sustainable RTW, defined as four consecutive weeks without medical benefits.

RESULTS

The median number of sickness absence days for the MI group was 73 days [interquartile range (IQR) 31-147], 76 days (35-134) for usual care, and 75 days (34-155) for active control. In total 89%, 88% and 86% of the participants, respectively, achieved sustainable RTW. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for time to sustainable RTW was 1.12 (95% CI 0.90-1.40) for MI compared to usual case management and HR 1.16 (95% CI 0.93-1.44) compared to the active control.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not provide evidence that MI offered by NAV caseworkers to sick-listed individuals was more effective on RTW than usual case management or an active control. Providing MI in this context could be challenging as only half of the MI group received the intervention.