Contact Tracing for COVID-19: The Use of Motivational Interviewing and the Role of Social Work.

One method in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 is that of contact tracing. It is estimated that in the US, 35,000-100,000 contact tracers will be hired (and trained) to talk to recently-infected individuals, understand who they have exposed to the virus, and encourage those exposed to self-quarantine. The Center for Disease Control recommends the use of motivational interviewing (MI) by contact tracers to encourage compliance with contact tracing/quarantine. Contact tracers need to sensitively communicate with COVID-19-exposed individuals who may also be experiencing other issues caused by the pandemic, such as anxiety, depression, grief, anger, intimate partner violence, health problems, food insecurity, and/or unemployment. Social workers are particularly prepared to address the mental health and other psychosocial problems that may be encountered in the tracing process. This article describes contact tracing, its use in other diseases, the role of MI, psychosocial issues that contact tracers may encounter, and how social work can respond to these needs. A sample dialogue of contact tracing using MI is presented with a discussion of the content and skills used in the process.

Proactive Assessment of Obesity Risk during Infancy (ProAsk): a qualitative study of parents' and professionals' perspectives on an mHealth intervention.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of childhood obesity is a public health priority. Interventions that establish healthy growth trajectories early in life promise lifelong benefits to health and wellbeing. Proactive Assessment of Obesity Risk during Infancy (ProAsk) is a novel mHealth intervention designed to enable health professionals to assess an infant's risk of future overweight and motivate parental behaviour change to prevent childhood overweight and obesity. The aim of this study was to explore parents' and health professionals' experiences of the overweight risk communication and behaviour change aspects of this mHealth intervention. METHODS: The study was conducted in four economically deprived localities in the UK. Parents (N = 66) were recruited to the ProAsk feasibility study when their infant was 6-8 weeks old. Twenty two health visitors (HVs) used a hand-held tablet device to deliver ProAsk to parents when their infants were 3 months old. Parents (N = 12) and HVs (N = 15) were interviewed when infants in the study were 6 months old. Interview data were transcribed and analysed thematically using an inductive, interpretative approach. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified across both parent and health visitor data: Engaging and empowering with digital technology; Unfamiliar technology presents challenges and opportunity; Trust in the risk score; Resistance to targeting. Most participants found the interactivity and visual presentation of information on ProAsk engaging. Health visitors who were unfamiliar with mobile technology drew support from parents who were more confident using tablet devices. There was evidence of resistance to targeting infants at greatest risk of future overweight and obesity, and both parents and health visitors drew on a number of reasons why a higher than average overweight risk score might not apply to a particular infant. CONCLUSIONS: An mHealth intervention actively engaged parents, enabling them to take ownership of the process of seeking strategies to reduce infant risk of overweight. However, cognitive and motivational biases that prevent effective overweight risk communication are barriers to targeting an intervention at those infants most at risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02314494 . Date registered 11th December 2014.

Digital technology to facilitate Proactive Assessment of Obesity Risk during Infancy (ProAsk): a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of using digital technology for Proactive Assessment of Obesity Risk during Infancy (ProAsk) with the UK health visitors (HVs) and parents. DESIGN: Multicentre, pre- and post-intervention feasibility study with process evaluation. SETTING: Rural and urban deprived settings, UK community care. PARTICIPANTS: 66 parents of infants and 22 HVs. INTERVENTION: ProAsk was delivered on a tablet device. It comprises a validated risk prediction tool to quantify overweight risk status and a therapeutic wheel detailing motivational strategies for preventive parental behaviour. Parents were encouraged to agree goals for behaviour change with HVs who received motivational interviewing training. OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed recruitment, response and attrition rates. Demographic details were collected, and overweight risk status. The proposed primary outcome measure was weight-for-age z-score. The proposed secondary outcomes were parenting self-efficacy, maternal feeding style, infant diet and exposure to physical activity/sedentary behaviour. Qualitative interviews ascertained the acceptability of study processes and intervention fidelity. RESULTS: HVs screened 324/589 infants for inclusion in the study and 66/226 (29%) eligible infants were recruited. Assessment of overweight risk was completed on 53 infants and 40% of these were identified as above population risk. Weight-for-age z-score (SD) between the infants at population risk and those above population risk differed significantly at baseline (-0.67 SD vs 0.32 SD). HVs were able to collect data and calculate overweight risk for the infants. Protocol adherence and intervention fidelity was a challenge. HVs and parents found the information provided in the therapeutic wheel appropriate and acceptable. CONCLUSION: Study recruitment and protocol adherence were problematic. ProAsk was acceptable to most parents and HVs, but intervention fidelity was low. There was limited evidence to support the feasibility of implementing ProAsk without significant additional resources. A future study could evaluate ProAsk as a HV-supported, parent-led intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02314494 (Feasibility Study Results).

Zoonotic disease risk perceptions in the British veterinary profession.

In human and veterinary medicine, reducing the risk of occupationally-acquired infections relies on effective infection prevention and control practices (IPCs). In veterinary medicine, zoonoses present a risk to practitioners, yet little is known about how these risks are understood and how this translates into health protective behaviour. This study aimed to explore risk perceptions within the British veterinary profession and identify motivators and barriers to compliance with IPCs. A cross-sectional study was conducted using veterinary practices registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Here we demonstrate that compliance with IPCs is influenced by more than just knowledge and experience, and understanding of risk is complex and multifactorial. Out of 252 respondents, the majority were not concerned about the risk of zoonoses (57.5%); however, a considerable proportion (34.9%) was. Overall, 44.0% of respondents reported contracting a confirmed or suspected zoonoses, most frequently dermatophytosis (58.6%). In veterinary professionals who had previous experience of managing zoonotic cases, time or financial constraints and a concern for adverse animal reactions were not perceived as barriers to use of personal protective equipment (PPE). For those working in large animal practice, the most significant motivator for using PPE was concerns over liability. When assessing responses to a range of different "infection control attitudes", veterinary nurses tended to have a more positive perspective, compared with veterinary surgeons. Our results demonstrate that IPCs are not always adhered to, and factors influencing motivators and barriers to compliance are not simply based on knowledge and experience. Educating veterinary professionals may help improve compliance to a certain extent, however increased knowledge does not necessarily equate to an increase in risk-mitigating behaviour. This highlights that the construction of risk is complex and circumstance-specific and to get a real grasp on compliance with IPCs, this construction needs to be explored in more depth.

Motivational interviewing and dietary counseling for obesity in primary care: an RCT.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Few studies have tested the impact of motivational interviewing (MI) delivered by primary care providers on pediatric obesity. This study tested the efficacy of MI delivered by providers and registered dietitians (RDs) to parents of overweight children aged 2 through 8. METHODS: Forty-two practices from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network of the American Academy of Pediatrics were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. Group 1 (usual care) measured BMI percentile at baseline and 1- and 2-year follow-up. Group 2 (provider only) delivered 4 MI counseling sessions to parents of the index child over 2 years. Group 3 (provider + RD) delivered 4 provider MI sessions plus 6 MI sessions from a RD. The primary outcome was child BMI percentile at 2-year follow up. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, the adjusted BMI percentile was 90.3, 88.1, and 87.1 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The group 3 mean was significantly (P = .02) lower than group 1. Mean changes from baseline in BMI percentile were 1.8, 3.8, and 4.9 across groups 1, 2, and 3. CONCLUSIONS: MI delivered by providers and RDs (group 3) resulted in statistically significant reductions in BMI percentile. Research is needed to determine the clinical significance and persistence of the BMI effects observed. How the intervention can be brought to scale (in particular, how to train physicians to use MI effectively and how best to train RDs and integrate them into primary care settings) also merits future research.

Validation of the one pass measure for motivational interviewing competence.

OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the psychometric properties of the OnePass coding system: a new, user-friendly tool for evaluating practitioner competence in motivational interviewing (MI). We provide data on reliability and validity with the current gold-standard: Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity tool (MITI). METHODS: We compared scores from 27 videotaped MI sessions performed by student counselors trained in MI and simulated patients using both OnePass and MITI, with three different raters for each tool. Reliability was estimated using intra-class coefficients (ICCs), and validity was assessed using Pearson's r. RESULTS: OnePass had high levels of inter-rater reliability with 19/23 items found from substantial to almost perfect agreement. Taking the pair of scores with the highest inter-rater reliability on the MITI, the concurrent validity between the two measures ranged from moderate to high. Validity was highest for evocation, autonomy, direction and empathy. CONCLUSION: OnePass appears to have good inter-rater reliability while capturing similar dimensions of MI as the MITI. Despite the moderate concurrent validity with the MITI, the OnePass shows promise in evaluating both traditional and novel interpretations of MI. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: OnePass may be a useful tool for developing and improving practitioner competence in MI where access to MITI coders is limited.

Motivational Interviewing: moving from why to how with autonomy support.

Motivational Interviewing (MI), a counseling style initially used to treat addictions, increasingly has been used in health care and public health settings. This manuscript provides an overview of MI, including its theoretical origins and core clinical strategies. We also address similarities and differences with Self-Determination Theory. MI has been defined as person-centered method of guiding to elicit and strengthen personal motivation for change. Core clinical strategies include, e.g., reflective listening and eliciting change talk. MI encourages individuals to work through their ambivalence about behavior change and to explore discrepancy between their current behavior and broader life goals and values. A key challenge for MI practitioners is deciding when and how to transition from building motivation to the goal setting and planning phases of counseling. To address this, we present a new three-phase model that provides a framework for moving from WHY to HOW; from building motivation to more action oriented counseling, within a patient centered framework.

Action reflections: a client-centered technique to bridge the WHY-HOW transition in Motivational Interviewing.

BACKGROUND: When using Motivational Interviewing (MI), once resistance or ambivalence are resolved and motivation is solidified, many practitioners struggle with how best to transition the discussion toward action planning, while still retaining the spirit and style of client centeredness, i.e., moving from the WHY phase to the HOW phase of counseling in a style that is MI-consistent. For many, there is a perception that the counseling style, skills, and strategies used to build motivation are distinct from those used in the action planning phase. The WHY to HOW transition does not, however, necessitate abandoning a client-centered style for a more overtly educational or directive style. Goal setting, action planning, provision of advice, and relapse prevention can be implemented from an autonomy supportive, MI consistent framework. METHOD: To this end, this article will present a new class of reflection, which we have termed "action reflections", that can be used to help bridge the WHY-HOW gap. Action reflections (AR) allow the clinician to maintain a tone and orientation that are consistent with MI, i.e. autonomy support; guiding versus directing, during the action phase of counseling. They differ from reflecting change talk as they focus not on the WHY of change, but the HOW, WHEN, or WHERE. Action Reflections (ARs) also differ from the more common type of reflections such as those that focus on client feelings, rolling with resistance, or acknowledging ambivalence as ARs usually contain a potential concrete step that the client has directly or obliquely mentioned. Like any type of reflection, ARs represent the clinician's best guess for what the client has said or, more apropos here, where the conversation might be heading. CONCLUSION: This article describes the various types of ARs and provides examples of each to help clinicians incorporate them into their behavior change counseling.