↓ Skip to main content

The dissemination of motivational interviewing in Swedish county councils: Results of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The dissemination of motivational interviewing in Swedish county councils: Results of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0181715
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Beckman, Lars Forsberg, Helena Lindqvist, Margarita Diez, Johanna Enö Persson, Ata Ghaderi

Abstract

A significant number of Swedish practitioners are offered workshop trainings in motivational interviewing through community-based implementation programs. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate to what extent the practitioners acquire and retain skills from additional supervision consisting of feedback based on monitoring of practice. A total of 174 practitioners in five county councils across Sweden were randomized to one of the study's two groups: 1) Regular county council workshop training, 2) Regular county council workshop training followed by six sessions of supervision. The participant's mean age was 43.3 years, and the majority were females (88.1%). Recruiting participants proved difficult, which may have led to a biased sample of practitioners highly motivated to learn the method. Although slightly different in form and content, all the workshop trainings increased the participants' skills to the same level. Also, consistent with previous research, the additional supervision group showed larger gains in proficiency compared to the group who received workshop training only at the six-month follow-up. However, analyses showed generally maintained levels of skills for all the participants at the follow-up assessment, and the majority of participants did not attain beginning proficiency levels at either post-workshop or follow-up. The results of this study address the real-life implications of dissemination of evidence-based practices. The maintained level of elevated skills for all participants is a promising finding. However, the low interest for obtaining additional supervision among the Swedish practitioners is problematic. In addition, neither the workshop trainings nor the additional supervision, although improving skills, were sufficient for most of the participants to reach beginning proficiency levels. This raises questions regarding the most efficient form of training to attain and sustain adequate practice standards, and how to create incentive and interest among practitioners to participate in such training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 6 14%
Other 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,484,366
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#78,439
of 196,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,127
of 317,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,464
of 4,113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.