Background
Methods
Participants
Procedure
A priori specified intervention and comparison consultations
Nurse training and quality assurance during the trial
Assessment of intervention and comparison consultations
Development of the coding frame
Assessment phase and inter-rater reliability
Data analysis
Results
Phase one of coding frame development: a priori hypothesised active ingredients
Items informed by a priori hypothesised active ingredients | ||
---|---|---|
Nurse delivery | Number of items and scales | Inter-rater agreementa,b
|
Protocol adherence | One item (5-point Likert type scale, ‘very poor’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5)). | 93.9% |
Competence | One item (‘very poor’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5)). | 85.7% |
Motivational techniques | Elicitation of patient beliefs: eight binary items (yes, no): (dis)advantages, good and bad feelings, (lack of) support, facilitators and barriers regarding taking medication as prescribed. | Elicitation: M = 99.5%; range 98.0-100.0%. |
Reinforcement and problem solving of relevant beliefs: eight items each (yes, no, not applicable if no beliefs to reinforce or problem solve). | Reinforcement: M = 78.6%; range 69.4-89.8%. Problem solving: M = 76.0%; range 69.4-87.8%. | |
Action planning techniques | Prompt elaboration of action plan for each dose taken: one item (‘very rarely/never’ (1) to ‘very frequently’ (5)). | M = 82.3%, range 77.6-87.8%. |
Patient receipt
|
Number of items and scales
|
Inter-rater agreement
a,b
|
Generation of beliefs | Eight binary items (yes/no). Items were scored as ‘yes’ if patients mentioned a relevant belief or said that they could not think of anything. | M = 92.6%, range 85.7-98.0%. |
Formulation of action plans | Level of difficulty of each plan: one item (‘very difficult’ (1) to ‘very easy’ (5)). | M = 89.8%, range 87.8-93.9%. |
Vocal formulation of each plan: one item (‘to a very small extent’ (1) to ‘to a very great extent’ (5)). | M = 87.8%; range 85.7-91.8%. | |
Who wrote each plan: one item (nurse, patient, unsure, other). | M = 94.6%, range 91.8-98.0%. | |
Who read out each plan: one item (nurse, patient, unsure, other). | M = 93.2%, range 89.8-98.0% | |
Read out in ‘if… then…’ format: one item (yes, no, not read out) | M = 93.9%, range 91.8-98.0% | |
Number of changes in each plan compared to existing routines: one item (‘very few/none’ (1) to ‘very many’ (5))’ | M = 96.6%, range 95.9-98.0% | |
Items identified through grounded theory
| ||
Nurse delivery
|
Number of items and scales
|
Inter-rater agreement
a,b
|
Communication style | Four items: professional/authoritative, friendly/relaxed, anxious/tentative, and angry/irritated (‘very rarely/never’ (1) to ‘very frequently’ (5)). | Intervention: M = 83.7%, range 71.4-98.0% |
Standard care: M = 73.5%, range 67.4-79.6%. | ||
Positive and negative aspects of communication | Nine items: agreement, disagreement, rapport facilitation and inhibition, partnership facilitation and inhibition, giving information, counselling/directing behaviour, and social behaviour (‘very rarely/never’ (1) to ‘very frequently’ (5)). | Intervention: M = 83.5%, range 75.5-95.9%. |
Standard care: M = 69.6%, 55.1-85.7%. | ||
Engagement with the intervention | One item (‘very disengaged’ (1) to ‘very engaged’ (5)). | 93.9% |
Nurse-patient relationship
| One item for relationship quality (‘very poor’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5)). | Intervention: 91.8% |
Standard care: 73.5% | ||
Patient receipt of intervention
| Four items: engagement (‘very disengaged’ (1) to ‘very engaged’ (5)); amount of talk (‘very little’ (1) to ‘a lot’ (5)); question asking (‘very rarely/never’ (1) to ‘very frequently’ (5)); understanding (‘very poor’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5)). | M = 89.8%, range 83.7-93.9%. |
General items
|
Number of items and scales
|
Inter-rater agreement
a, c
|
Duration
| Five items: standard care (two items), intervention introduction, motivational component, action planning component (minutes:seconds). | M = 92.0%, range 84.0-100% |
Nurse delivery of overall intervention and techniques
Patient receipt of motivational and action planning techniques
Phase two of coding frame development: grounded theory approach
Nurse communication
Nurse-patient relationship
Patient receipt of the intervention
Reliability of the coding frame during the assessment phase
Reliability of phase one items
Reliability of phase two items
Nurse delivery of the intervention
Overall ratings
Overall ratings | M (SD)a
| Nb
|
---|---|---|
Protocol adherence | 3.95 (0.91) | 117 |
Competence | 3.15 (1.01) | 117 |
Communication style
| ||
-Professional/authoritative | 3.66 (1.15) | 117 |
-Friendly/relaxed | 3.14 (1.27) | 117 |
-Anxious/tentative | 1.28 (0.59) | 117 |
-Angry/irritated | 1.26 (0.54) | 117 |
Positive and negative aspects of communication
| ||
-Agreement | 3.60 (1.17) | 117 |
-Disagreement | 1.12 (0.40) | 117 |
-Rapport facilitation | 2.92 (0.94) | 117 |
-Rapport inhibition | 1.16 (0.45) | 117 |
-Partnership facilitation | 2.93 (0.93) | 117 |
-Partnership inhibition | 1.44 (0.71) | 117 |
-Giving information | 1.50 (0.80) | 117 |
-Counselling/directing behaviour | 1.33 (0.60) | 117 |
-Social behaviour | 1.25 (0.62) | 117 |
Engagement | 3.57 (1.05) | 117 |
Quality of relationship | 3.71 (0.85) | 117 |
Delivery of behaviour change techniques
| ||
Motivational techniques
| ||
Number of questions asked to elicit patient beliefs (0–8) | 7.72 (0.62) | 116 |
Proportion of patients for whom nurses reinforced positive beliefsc
| ||
-Advantages of taking medication | 64.7% | 102 |
-Good feelings about taking medication | 69.7% | 66 |
-Others supportive of taking medication | 77.2% | 111 |
-Facilitators of taking medication | 71.4% | 70 |
Proportion of patients for whom nurses prompted problem solving of negative beliefsc
| ||
-Disadvantages of taking medication | 37.5% | 40 |
-Bad feelings about taking medication | 23.8% | 80 |
-Others unsupportive of taking medication | 25.0% | 4 |
-Barriers to taking medication | 21.2% | 70 |
Action planning techniques
| ||
Prompting patients to elaborate on action plans | ||
-Morning dose | 2.50 (1.10) | 103 |
-Afternoon dose | 1.80 (0.96) | 35 |
-Evening dose | 1.96 (0.96) | 98 |
Who read out the plan | ||
-Morning: 5.8% patient, 56.3% nurse, 37.9% not read out | 103 | |
-Afternoon: 11.4% patient, 51.4% nurse, 37.1% not read out | 35 | |
-Evening: 7.1% patient, 51.0% nurse, 41.8% not read out | 98 | |
Was the plan read out in the ‘if…then…’ format | ||
-Morning: 12.6% yes, 49.5% no, 37.9% not read out | 103 | |
-Afternoon: 2.9% yes, 60.0% no, 37.1% not read out | 35 | |
-Evening: 5.1% yes, 52.0% no, 42.9% not read out | 98 | |
Duration of intervention (minutes: seconds)
| ||
Introduction | 06:23 (02:20) | 115 |
Motivational component | 06:31 (03:08) | 116 |
Action planning component | 10:06 (04:00) | 117 |
Total duration | 23:00 (07:38) | 115 |
Delivery of behaviour change techniques
Duration
Patient receipt of the intervention
Overall ratings
Overall ratings | M (SD)a
|
N
b
|
---|---|---|
Engagement | 3.56 (1.03) | 117 |
Amount of talk | 3.29 (1.01) | 117 |
Extent to which patients asked questions | 1.35 (0.69) | 117 |
Understanding of the intervention | 3.48 (0.89) | 117 |
Receipt of behaviour change techniques
| ||
Motivational techniques
| ||
Proportion of patients who mentioned relevant beliefsc
| ||
-Advantages of taking medication | 88.7% | 115 |
-Disadvantages of taking medication | 94.6% | 112 |
-Good feelings about taking medication | 80.7% | 114 |
-Bad feelings about taking medication | 90.0% | 110 |
-Others supportive of taking medication | 95.7% | 116 |
-Others unsupportive of taking medication | 98.1% | 107 |
-Facilitators of taking medication | 91.8% | 110 |
-Barriers of taking medication | 94.5% | 110 |
Action planning techniques
| ||
Perceived difficulty of generating action plans | ||
-Morning dose | 3.77 (1.09) | 103 |
-Afternoon dose | 3.82 (1.06) | 34 |
-Evening dose | 3.94 (1.05) | 97 |
Vocal formulation of action plans | ||
-Morning dose | 4.22 (0.93) | 103 |
-Afternoon dose | 4.29 (0.72) | 34 |
-Evening dose | 4.09 (1.05) | 97 |
Number of changes in plans compared to current routines | ||
-Morning dose | 1.18 (0.62) | 103 |
-Afternoon dose | 1.06 (0.34) | |
-Evening dose | 1.28 (0.72) | 97 |
Who wrote the plan down | ||
-Morning: 74.8% patient, 22.3% nurse, 2.9% unsure/other | 103 | |
-Afternoon: 68.6% patient, 28.6% nurse, 2.9% other | 35 | |
-Evening: 72.4% patient, 23.5% nurse, 4.0% unsure/other | 98 |
Receipt of behaviour change techniques
Differences in nurse delivery between intervention and comparison groups
Intervention n = 115a
| Comparison n = 77 | Mean difference between intervention and comparison (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|
M (SD) | M (SD) | ||
Communication style
| |||
Professional/authoritative | 3.61 (1.06) | 3.57 (0.85) | −0.042 (−0.327 to 0.244); t(190) = −0.288, p = 0.774 |
Friendly/relaxed | 3.13 (1.18) | 3.44 (1.03) | 0.316 (−0.012 to 0.643); t(190) = 1.903, p = 0.059 |
Anxious/tentative | 1.19 (0.44) | 1.03 (0.16) | −0.161 (−0.265 to −0.058); t(190) = −3.065, p = 0.002 |
Angry/irritated | 1.19 (0.44) | 1.14 (0.45) | −0.044 (−0.173 to 0.085); t(190) = −0.673, p = 0.502 |
Communication characteristics
| |||
Agreement | 2.95 (0.97) | 3.07 (1.18) | 0.113 (−0.196 to 0.422); t(190) = 0.720, p = 0.472 |
Disagreement | 1.10 (0.25) | 1.07 (0.25) | −0.039 (−0.112 to 0.033); t(190) = −1.068, p = 0.287 |
Rapport facilitation | 2.78 (0.88) | 3.34 (0.98) | 0.559 (0.291 to 0.828); t(190) = 4.117, p < 0.0001 |
Rapport inhibition | 1.17 (0.36) | 1.14 (0.39) | −0.031 (−0.139 to 0.077); t(190) = −0.565, p = 0.573 |
Partnership facilitation | 2.47 (0.81) | 2.79 (1.10) | 0.323 (0.049 to 0.596); t(190) = 2.328, p = 0.021 |
Partnership inhibition | 1.24 (0.38) | 1.13 (0.50) | −0.114 (−0.238 to 0.011); t(190) = −1.801, p = 0.073 |
Gives information | 1.93 (0.79) | 3.10 (1.02) | 1.174( 0.915 to 1.432); t(190) = 8.951, p < 0.0001 |
Counsels/directs behaviour | 1.76 (0.75) | 2.79 (1.21) | 1.036 (0.757 to 1.314); t(190) = 7.342, p < 0.0001 |
Nurse and patient social behaviour | 1.67 (0.69) | 2.33 (1.21) | 0.655 (0.384 to 0.926); t(190) = 4.769, p < 0.0001 |
Quality of relationship
| 3.77 (0.71) | 3.97 (0.78) | 0.205 (−0.010 to 0.418), t(190) = 1.885, p = 0.061 |