Skip to main content
Download PDF

Evidence for motivational interviewing in educational settings among medical schools: a scoping review

BMC Medical Education volume 24, Article number: 856 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a person-centred approach focused on empowering and motivating individuals for behavioural change. Medical students can utilize MI in patient education to engage with patients’ chronic health ailments and maladaptive behaviours. A current scoping review was conducted to 1) determine the types of MI (conventional, adapted, brief and group MI) education programs in medical schools, delivery modalities and teaching methods used; 2) classify educational outcomes on the basis of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy; and 3) determine the key elements of MI education via the FRAMES (feedback, responsibility, advice, menu of options, empathy, self-efficacy) model.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted via the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley. Two online databases, CINAHL and MEDLINE Complete, were searched to identify MI interventions in medical education. Further articles were selected from bibliography lists and the Google Scholar search engine.

Results

From an initial yield of 2019 articles, 19 articles were included. First, there appears to be a bimodal distribution of most articles published between the two time periods of 2004--2008 and 2019--2023. Second, all the studies included in this review did not use conventional MI but instead utilized a variety of MI adaptation techniques. Third, most studies used face-to-face training in MI, whereas only one study used online delivery. Fourth, most studies have used a variety of interactive experiences to teach MI. Next, all studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 2, but only 4 studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 3. According to the FRAMES model, all studies (n=19; 100%) reported the elements of responsibility and advice. The element that was reported the least was self-efficacy (n = 12; 63.1%).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that motivational interviewing can be taught effectively in medical schools via adaptations to MI and a variety of teaching approaches. However, there is a need for further research investigating standardized MI training across medical schools, the adequate dose for training in MI and the implementation of reflective practices. Future studies may benefit from exploring and better understanding the relationship between MI and self-efficacy in their MI interventions.

Peer Review reports

Background

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a person-centred approach that focuses on empowering and motivating individuals for behavioural change [1]. Undoubtedly, the empathetic approach of MI in clinical settings fosters a supportive environment that encourages discussion of the benefits of enhanced self-care [2]. In this context, MI practitioners utilize a set of essential skills encapsulated by the acronym “OARS”, which stands for O = open-ended questions, A = affirmations, R = reflections and S = summaries to promote active listening [3]. MI was developed primarily for the treatment of addiction disorders but has since progressed to include other physical and mental ailments as well [4]. In a study on MI interventions in alcoholism, Miller & Sanchez [68] identified six common motivational elements that should be covered, represented by the acronym “FRAMES”, where F = feedback (e.g., personalized feedback on the impacts of alcoholism on the client’s own experiences, as opposed to providing generic information); R = responsibility (e.g., empowering clients to make their own choices and take responsibility for their change process); A = advice (e.g., effectively given in a nondirective and noncoercive manner); M = menu (e.g., offering a variety of choices on transition methods and plans); E = empathy (e.g., rendering empathic, reassuring and reflective listening); and S = self-efficacy (e.g., supporting clients to succeed in a specified goal). This review used the FRAMES model to determine the key elements of MI education. FRAMES was a predecessor to MI and was initially designed to address drinking problems [5]; however, it is also used in other health issues, such as decreasing stroke risk [6], substance use screening and brief intervention [7]. The FRAMES model offers a structure that can be used to improve the delivery of MI by ensuring that key elements of MI are present in educational interventions.

Mechanisms of motivational interviewing

Frey et al. [8] developed mechanisms of the motivational interviewing (MMI) framework and described the mechanisms of fidelity of practice in MI, including a technical component, a relational component and MI-inconsistent practices [8]. The technical component consists of the interviewer’s ability to evaluate the participant’s language relating to a specific behaviour change target and then build a conversation that evokes change talk. The relational component includes respect for the participant’s self-determination, appropriate empathy, and equal partnership. Non-MI consistent behaviours include confrontation, offering unsolicited advice, and persuasion. Additionally, it is important to identify and understand the mechanisms of change so that MI users and researchers can focus on these mechanisms during training, which can lead to improved outcomes and fidelity [8].

Types of motivational interviewing

MI can be categorized into four types: conventional, adaptive, brief, and group. Conventional MI is an evidence-based approach and directive form of interviewing developed by Miller & Rollnick [9]. Throughout the course of MI, four important tasks occur: engaging (building mutual relationships), focusing (setting goals), evoking (developing clients’ motivations for change) and planning (negotiating change) [9]. In this review, the term conventional MI is defined as an approach that utilizes MI-consistent tasks and behaviours in multiple sessions that target an identified population of clients.

Adapted MI consists of culturally sensitive MI and digitally supported interventions that can be used as adjunct interventions to the primary behavioural program [10]. This review defines the term adapted MI to include any adaptations made to adapt MI culturally to the setting or delivered by technology through various types of technologies and content (e.g., computers, smartphones, applications, videos and audio). Additionally, it also includes adaptations made to structured curricula, such as using role plays or real patient interactions to facilitate the learning of MI.

Brief MI is a type of MI with varying lengths, ranging from 5--90 minutes in duration, emphasizing the lack of an accepted definition of brief MI [10]. This review defines the term brief MI as an MI that provides brief consultations centred on typically fewer sessions (e.g., 1--2 sessions) than conventional MI (e.g., 3--4 sessions or more).

Group MI can be defined as groups of clients that apply the MI spirit, processes and methods to increase motivation for change and promote beneficial collaboration among participants and practitioners in a shared location to encourage change [11]. This review defines the term group MI as MI that is adapted for group format and is MI consistent (e.g., applying MI principles, spirit and techniques in its delivery).

Additionally, MI can be used in patient education to help patients better handle their chronic health conditions and maladaptive behaviours. Therefore, behavioural change is vital in the recovery course of different mental and physical disorders, as a change to a healthier lifestyle has been shown to result in a significant decrease in chronic disease risk [12]. More than 120 studies have demonstrated the efficacy of MI in addressing a wide range of problematic behaviours, such as substance abuse and risky behaviour, as well as promoting healthy behaviours [13]. There is specific evidence regarding the effectiveness of MI across different health behaviours (substance abuse, risky behaviours and promoting health behaviours), according to the types of MI: conventional, adaptive, brief and group. For conventional MI, research has shown effectiveness in treating substance abuse [14], reducing risky behaviours in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive men [15] and promoting physical activity in older adults [16]. Adaptive MI has demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing alcohol problems in women [17], reducing risky sexual behaviours and psychological symptoms in HIV-positive older adults [18] and promoting self-management to reduce BMI and improve lifestyle adherence with a computer assistant [19]. Brief MI has been effective in reduction in alcohol misuse in college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [20] and improvement in the engagement of physical activity in patients with low physical activity levels [21]. Research has revealed that group MI is effective in treating drug use among women [22], reducing risky sexual behaviour among adolescents [23] and improving self-efficacy and oral health behaviours among pregnant women [24].

Unhealthy lifestyle-linked behaviours characterize common preventable risk factors that lead to the majority of noncommunicable diseases and their associated mortality and morbidity [25]. MI provides an approach for healthcare providers to assist patients in investigating and resolving their ambivalence toward changing unhealthy lifestyle behaviour [27]. Studies have reported the effectiveness of teaching MI to medical students [4, 26, 28,29,30]. Therefore, considering the prevalence and widespread application of MI in health care settings, this underscores the importance of MI being taught in the initial stages of medical education.

In a recent systematic review, Kaltman and Tankersley [31] reviewed MI curricula in undergraduate medical education (UME) and revealed important findings. Their research findings suggest that generally being involved in an MI curriculum can be linked to enhanced MI-related knowledge and skills in the short term. Additionally, they noted that 1) the MI curricula were heterogeneous in nature; 2) the curricula were different in terms of timing, duration and number of sessions; 3) the curricula employed in studies were multiple pedagogies; and 4) the quality of the evaluations and research evidence varied. However, this review by Kaltman and Tankersley [31] was limited to reporting only on MI-specific outcomes such as knowledge, skills, attitudes towards, and self-efficacy in implementing MI. Kaltman and Tankersley [31] systematic review did not stratify and explore in detail studies on the types of MI (conventional, adaptive, brief, or group). Furthermore, the systematic review did not investigate the key elements of MI education as described by the FRAMES model. The scoping review aimed to bridge the knowledge gap on types of MI (conventional, adapted, brief, group MI) and key elements of MI education covered via the FRAMES model. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to 1) determine the types of MI education programs in medical schools, the delivery modalities, and the teaching methods used; 2) classify educational outcomes on the basis of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy [32]; and 3) determine the key elements of MI education covered via the FRAMES model.

Methods

Procedure

This study adopted the methodological 5-step framework of Arksey and O’Malley for this scoping review. The five steps are as follows: 1) define our research objectives; 2) identify relevant studies; 3) identify studies based on our selection criteria; 4) chart and analyse the data; and 5) collate, summarize, and disseminate the results.

Eligibility criteria

Relevant peer-reviewed articles on MI studies conducted in medical education settings, published in academic journals only, in the English language, with no time limit imposed on the publication period, were identified. Studies involving nonmedical students as well as grey literature, such as conference proceedings, technical reports, videos, and informal communications, were excluded. Studies in languages other than English were also excluded. The search strategy was guided by the methodology of Aromataris and Riitano [33]. The Boolean operators and keywords used in this search strategy were ("medical education" OR "medical teaching*" OR "medical graduate*" OR "medical postgraduate*” OR “medical student*”) AND ("motivational interview*" OR "motivational enhanc*" OR "motivational chang*" OR "motivational behavior”) AND ("psycholog*" OR "health*"). The search utilized databases from the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE Complete) and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Complete) databases via the EBSCOHost database search query, covering all study designs (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and mixed studies). The protocol was developed a priori before the search process was conducted, including establishing the objectives and eligibility criteria for determining the studies selected. The reference lists of the selected studies were further checked for additional sources, including traditional and systematic reviews. Articles that met the eligibility criteria were selected through a consensus among the authors and were charted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [34]. The first author conducted the searches and screened the articles using the search strategy and the inclusion and exclusion criteria stated above. This process resulted in the identification of 59 articles. The decision process resulted in 19 studies for inclusion in this review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were extracted and charted by the first author. Notably, the following data were extracted: 1) the study characteristics of the identified articles (publication year, country of origin, type of MI, and medical student phase) and 2) a detailed description of the key findings of the articles (i.e., author, year, objectives, participants, delivery, duration, teaching methods, assessments, and educational outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy). Proforma was developed by all the authors and used to extract and chart the data. The study characteristics are then charted in Table 1, and detailed descriptions of the key findings of the articles are charted in Table 2. The other authors assisted in identifying specific data elements to be charted onto Tables 1 and 2. All the authors contributed to analysing the charted data to ensure the consistency and accuracy of the analysis. The outcomes of educational intervention were classified under the four levels of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy. Studies classified as Level 3 consists of simulations and observations of behaviours in activities (e.g., roleplay, standardized patients, real patients) after a learning activity such as a workshop. Although Level 3 is usually linked to students applying what they have acquired in training to job settings, our classification extends to controlled settings simulating real-life applications. The most recent search of MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete and Google Scholar was carried out in October 2023.

Table 1 Study characteristics of the identified articles
Full size table
Table 2 Detailed description of the key findings of selected articles
Full size table

Results

From an initial pool of 2,019 articles, after removing duplicates and screening for relevance, 19 articles were included in this review. The detailed selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Prism flow diagram

Full size image

Characteristics of the identified articles

The study characteristics, country of origin, and phase of study are presented in Table 1. The detailed descriptions of the key findings of these articles (i.e., author, year, objectives, participants, delivery, duration, teaching methods, assessments, and educational outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy) are provided in Table 2. Most of the studies were published between 2004–2008 and 2019–2023, with each period accounting for 31.5% of the total articles. The majority of MI studies originated from the US (57.8%).

Types and characteristics of MI

With respect to the first research objective, none of the 19 studies in this scoping review conducted conventional MI. Rather, most studies in this scoping review used adapted MI (n=8; 42.1%) [4, 36, 38, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49], followed by group MI (n=7; 36.8%) [26, 29, 35, 40, 45, 48, 39] and brief MI (n=4; 21%) [37, 41, 43, 50].

Adapted motivational interviewing was utilized in 8 studies. This approach includes any adaptations utilized to adjust MI culturally to the situation or facilitated by technology via different types of content and technologies (e.g., computers, smartphones, applications, videos and audio). Additionally, it also includes adaptations made to structured curricula, such as using role plays via standardized patients or real patient interactions to facilitate the learning of MI. Adapted MI was reported in 8 studies. Specifically, 5 studies [36, 38, 42, 44, 47] adapted their curricula to teach MI via role playing standardized patients or real patients. Additionally, 3 studies [4, 46, 49] utilized technological adaptations and blended learning (face-to-face and online) to teach motivational interviewing.

In group MI, this approach consists of MI that is adapted for group format and is MI consistent (e.g., applying MI principles, spirit and techniques in its delivery). Group MI was carried out in 7 studies. Two studies [26, 45] used training workshops to teach and practice MI in smaller groups. The remaining 5 studies [29, 35, 39, 40, 48] used a small group format to teach MI skills consisting of lectures, roleplay, a case-based curriculum and demonstrations.

Brief MI provides brief consultations centred on typically shorter number sessions (e.g., 1--2 sessions) than conventional MI (e.g., 3--4 sessions or more). A brief MI was conducted in 4 studies. Two studies [41, 51] delivered a single session of MI training within two hours. Another study [50] conducted four (10–15 minute) sessions teaching MI, with a total of less than 1 hour of training. Opheim et al. [43] conducted a four-hour workshop on MI, which is a relatively brief training intervention.

More than half of the studies focused on clinical medical students (n=10; 52.6%) [4, 35, 37, 38, 41,42,43, 45, 46, 49], and the least studied was the combination of preclinical and clinical students (n=2; 10.5%) [40, 47]. There was a diverse number of participants, ranging from 17 to 339 students. The median number of participants in these studies was 93. The most common delivery mode identified was face-to-face learning (n=15; 78.9%) [26, 29, 35, 36, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45, 47, 48, 51], followed by blended learning (n=3; 15.7%) [4, 46, 49], and the least common delivery mode was online learning (n=1, 5.2%) [50]. The duration of intervention for brief MI (n=4; 21.0%) [37, 41, 43, 50] ranged from 10 minutes to 2 hours per session. The duration of adapted MI (n=8; 42.1%) [4, 36, 38, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49] and group MI (n=7; 36.8%) [26, 29, 35, 40, 39, 45, 48] ranged from 3 hours to 12 hours. The teaching methods include workshops, lectures, videos, role plays, demonstrations, interviews, interactive exercises, small and large group activities, simulated patients, and online forums.

Classifying educational outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy

With respect to the second research objective (i.e., classifying educational outcomes on the basis of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy [32]), all 19 studies [4, 26, 29, 35, 36, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51] were categorized at Kirkpatrick’s Level 2 (knowledge/skills/attitudes). This is followed by 16 out of 19 studies [4, 26, 29, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51] categorized at Kirkpatrick’s Level 1. Only 4 out of 19 studies [35, 38, 41, 47] are categorized at Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 (Behaviour). One of the studies [38] compared the effectiveness of standardized patients versus role plays from colleagues and reported that both were equally effective for teaching basic MI skills among medical students. The students were evaluated in a simulated environment and demonstrated their MI skills in terms of student roleplay or standardized patients. The study reported that standardized patient role play is as effective as student role play in teaching basic MI skills. The sessions focused on demonstrating skills in a simulated setting, suggesting that the student’s behaviour (i.e., adherence to MI skills) was evaluated and improved via the educational intervention. In another study, Bell et al. [35] investigated the use of a curriculum to teach medical students the principles of MI to increase their knowledge, skills and confidence in counselling patients with the aim of health behaviour change. The research indicated that video-recorded interactions between students and patients enabled students to effectively apply MI skills to real-life patients. None of the studies included reported outcomes at Level 4 (results).

Key elements of the reported FRAMES model and assessment methods used

With respect to the third research objective, all 6 elements in the FRAMES model were covered in 9 out of 19 studies [4, 29, 35, 36, 39, 40, 44, 45, 51], 5 elements were identified in another 4 studies [26, 41, 48, 49], and 4 elements were identified in 4 studies [42, 43, 46, 47]. The most reported element in all 19 studies was responsibility and advice (n=19; 100%), and the least reported element was self-efficacy in only 12 studies (n=12; 63.1%) [4, 29, 35, 36, 39,40,41, 44,45,46, 48, 51]. Figure 2 shows additional details on the important elements present in the MI interventions.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Important elements of MI interventions (n = 19) identified as “reported” via the FRAMES model

Full size image

The primary assessment method used across the studies was the use of pre- and posttest surveys, which are used to measure knowledge (n=10, 52.6%), skills (n=5, 26.3%) and attitudes (n=3, 15.8%) pertaining to MI. Moreover, the specific instruments employed for focused assessments were (1) MITI to measure fidelity of MI in 5 out of 19 studies (n=5, 26.3%), (2) Video Assessment of Simulated Encounters (VASE-R) to measure MI skills in 2 out of 19 (n=2, 10.5%) (3) Behaviour Change Counselling Index (BECCI) to measure practitioner’s skill and competence in delivering effective MI in 2 studies out of 19 (n=2, 10.5%), (4) Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) to measure clinical competence in 2 studies out of 19 (n=2, 10.5%), (5) Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test (MIKAT) to measure the practitioner’s knowledge and attitude pertaining to MI in 1 study out of 19 (n=1, 5.2%), (6) Motivational interviewing skill code (MISC) to measure adherence to MI in 1 study out of 19 (n=1, 5.2%), (7) the Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guide (C-CG) to measure communication skills between practitioners and patients was used in 1 study out of 19 (n=1, 5.2%), (8) Motivational interviewing confidence scale (MICS) to measure confidence in health behaviour change dialogues in 1 study out of 19 (n=1, 5.2%) and (8) the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE) to measure empathy in patient care among health practitioners in 1 study out of 19 (n=1, 5.2%).

Discussion

Our scoping review sheds light on the current trends and key findings to determine the types of MI education programs in medical schools, the delivery modalities and teaching methods used, classify educational outcomes on based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy [32] and determine the key elements of MI education covered via the FRAMES model. First, there appears to be a bimodal distribution of most articles published between the two time periods of 2004--2008 and 2019--2023. Second, all the studies included in this review did not use conventional MI but instead utilized a variety of MI adaptation techniques. Third, most studies used face-to-face training in MI, whereas only one study used online delivery. Fourth, most studies have used a variety of interactive experiences to teach MI. Next, all studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 2, but only 4 studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 3. Finally, the most covered elements of MI training in these studies were responsibility and advice (n = 19; 100%), and the least covered element in MI training was self-efficacy (n = 12; 63.1%) [4, 29, 35, 36, 39,40,41, 44,45,46, 48, 51]. This review expands on the evidence of MI interventions among medical schools. The results of our findings generally suggest that MI can be effectively taught in medical schools. Furthermore, we have provided several recommendations for further research to improve the implementation of MI in medical schools.

There appears to be a bimodal distribution of published articles between the two time periods, i.e., between 2004 and 2008 and between 2019 and 2023. A decline in the number of articles published was observed between 2009 and 2019. This decline could be due to the shift in the applications of MI beyond treating addictive behaviours to include a broad range of other behavioural conditions [52], such as its expanded applications in school education [53,54,55], lifestyle coaching [56,57,58], probation and parole [59, 60] and digital health care and telemedicine [61, 62]. From 2019 onwards, however, there was an increasing trend in the number of published articles on MI training for medical students. This could be attributed to the MI Network of Trainers (MINT) making it mandatory to attend MI training during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide virtual training in 2020 and 2021 [52], which has facilitated remote participation.

Types of MI education programs in medical schools

All the studies included in this review did not use conventional MI but utilized a variety of MI adaptation techniques. Most studies [4, 36, 38, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49] have used adapted MI to conduct their MI training, possibly because of the need to tailor MI programs to fit medical school curricula. Medical students have been linked to extensive academic responsibilities and clinical rotations [63], contributing to this adaptation of MI. In fact, the lack of harmonization of training methods among medical schools has led to challenges in understanding the optimal approach to teach MI among medical students [31]. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the standard dose of training in MI that is adequate or mandatory for learners to acquire sufficient skilfulness in the practice of MI [9]. Moreover, medical schools have time constraints and limited MI teaching opportunities because of their hectic medical curriculum schedules [41]. This may lead to a variety of adaptations of MI, as noted in this review. Future research can focus on addressing the lack of harmonization in MI training methods and emphasize building and employing standardized MI training with adequate dosing across medical schools.

Delivery modalities and teaching methods used

In the present review, the delivery modalities used to train medical students in MI varied across the studies. Most studies [26, 29, 35, 36, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45, 47, 48, 51] have focused on delivering face-to-face training on MI to clinical medical students. This aligns with the current literature, which suggests that MI is a complex communication skill [57] and is reported to be taught more effectively in face-to-face sessions [64]. In this review, only one study [50] used a fully online approach to teach MI to medical students. A systemic study suggested that for an online MI intervention to be effective, it requires significant emphasis on fidelity and training procedures [65]. In a recent comparative study, Schaper et al. [66] reported similar effects of training MI among general practitioners in both online and face-to-face training in MI skills and spirit. Future studies could focus on the implementation of online versus face-to-face training for medical students with an emphasis on fidelity and training procedures for MI.

A large proportion of the studies in this review report the use of a variety of teaching approaches (e.g., workshops, role-play, standardized patients, and small and large group sessions) to teach MI. This aligns with Kolb’s experiential learning cycle [67], where the process of learning occurs when knowledge is formed via the transformation of experience. This model is guided by four phases of the learning process: concrete experience (having an experience), reflective observation (reflecting on an experience), abstract conceptualization (learning from the experience), and active experimentation (experimenting what you have learned). Medical students who are given the opportunity to engage in Kolb’s learning cycle [67] via interactive activities, reflection and simulated or real-life settings are likely to develop good MI skills. Future research should underpin educational theories into MI training by implementing structured reflective exercises in MI education.

Educational outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy

Our review shows that all studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 2, suggesting that medical students have acquired the intended knowledge, skills, and attitudes. There are only 4 studies that reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 3, which evaluates the degree to which the students apply their learning to simulated or real-world settings. The first 3 studies [38, 41, 47] showed their improvement in behaviour by showing their learned skills in realistic settings, which included observing students’ behaviour in standardized patients or real patients. The last study [35] revealed improvements in the MI skills of real patients in diverse settings, such as traditional health behaviour interventions, such as alcohol, tobacco and weight loss interventions. Future studies should include longitudinal evaluations of the effectiveness of MI skills.

Key elements of MI education covered via the FRAMES model

According to the FRAMES model [68], all included studies reported the elements of responsibility and advice (n=19; 100%) in the training of MI. The element responsibility is the shared responsibility of the learner’s growth by the learner and teacher. This could be attributed to the move towards competency-based medical education, which emphasizes shared responsibility among students while incorporating student-centric learning techniques and formative assessment as a vital element of the learning process [69]. In other words, the high reporting of ‘responsibility’ and ‘advice’ suggest that the present MI training significantly emphasizes medical students taking ownership of their learning and decision-making processes (‘responsibility’). Moreover, from a patient education perspective, empowering patients to take ownership of their health [70] and effectively guiding patients toward positive behavioural changes through good advice in a nonconfrontational approach is a basic tenet of MI (‘advice’).

The least reported element found in training for MI in our included studies [4, 29, 35, 36, 39,40,41, 44,45,46, 48, 51] was self-efficacy. This may be due to MI training focusing less on self-efficacy and instead emphasizing other elements, such as empathy, open-ended questioning and reflective listening. An educational theory that is linked to the element of self-efficacy is social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory can be defined as a person’s belief in their ability to determine the behaviours required to reach their desired goals and their perceptions of their ability and skills to manage their environment [71, 72]. Continued research into integrating social cognitive theory into MI training could assist practitioners in comprehending the role and importance of self-efficacy in behaviour change and reflective practice. The lower reporting of ‘self-efficacy’ might also indicate a potential gap in MI training. Self-efficacy is essential because it relates to the practitioner’s confidence in their ability to effectively implement MI techniques and facilitate behaviour change in patients. Addressing this gap in future research could lead to more competent and confident practitioners who are better equipped to address challenging patient interactions and support positive health outcomes. Future studies can also utilize FRAMES to guide research design and interventions and investigate which aspects of FRAMES in the training of MI are most effective within the limited time frame of medical curricula.

Limitations

This scoping review is subject to several limitations. We included only English-language studies in which medical students were the target participants. We did not include articles that are categorized as grey literature or other forms of nonpeer review articles, which might have resulted in biased outcomes. Most of the studies focused on evaluating learner knowledge and skills in MI, which might have limited the practical applications of MI to real patients. The first author conducted the search and screening of the articles. This may lead to selection bias and reduce the reliability of the study selection process. The protocol for this review was developed before the search was initiated but was not registered or published online, which increases the risk of selective reporting. The database search was limited to MEDLINE Complete and CINAHL Complete, which were accessed via EBSCOhost and the search engine Google Scholar. Although a comprehensive search was conducted, other databases that were relevant to the review, such as the PsycINFO and ERIC databases, were not included, potentially resulting in missing relevant articles. Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy was utilized to assess educational outcomes in this review. This approach may neglect other core aspects of educational interventions. Furthermore, although we have extensively searched various countries, most of the studies reported are from the USA (n=11; 57.8%) or Germany (n=4; 21.0%). A lack of diversity among studies in other regions may lead to biased outcomes.

Conclusion

Based on our review, the findings suggest that motivational interviewing can be taught effectively in medical schools via adaptations of MI and a variety of teaching approaches. However, there is a need for further research investigating standardized MI training across medical schools, the adequate dose for training in MI and the implementation of reflective practices that are supported by educational learning theories. Furthermore, longitudinal studies can assess the effectiveness of MI. Future studies may benefit from exploring and better understanding the relationship between MI and self-efficacy in their MI interventions. The FRAMES model can be used to guide research and explore which aspects of FRAMES are optimally delivered within the limited time frame of medical curricula.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

ADHD:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

BECCI:

Behaviour Change Counselling Index

BMI:

Brief motivational interviewing

CEQ:

Course Experience Questionnaire

C-CG:

Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guide

CINAHL:

Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature

FRAMES:

Feedback, Responsibility, Advice, Menu of Options, Empathy, Self-Efficacy

HIV:

Human immunodeficiency virus

HRQ:

Helpful response questionnaire

JPSE:

Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy

LGA:

Large Group Activities

LOQ:

Learning Outcomes Questionnaire

MEDLINE:

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online

MI:

Motivational interviewing

MICS:

Motivational Interviewing Confidence Scale

MIKAT:

Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test

MINT:

Motivational interviewing network of trainers

MISC:

Motivational interviewing skill code

MITI:

Motivational interviewing treatment integrity

MMI:

Mechanisms of Motivational Interview

OARS:

O = open-ended questions, A = affirmations, R = reflections, and S = summaries to promote active listening

OSCE:

Objective Structured Clinical Examination

PRISMA-ScR:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines

SGA:

Small Group Activities

SP:

Simulated Patient

TIBS:

Tabacco Intervention Basic Skills

TPB:

Theory of Planned Behaviour

VASE-R:

Video Assessment of the Simulated Encounter

References

  1. Spencer JC, Wheeler SB. A systematic review of Motivational Interviewing interventions in cancer patients and survivors. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(7):1099–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gabbay RA, Kaul S, Ulbrecht J, Scheffler NM, Armstrong DG. Motivational interviewing by podiatric physicians: a method for improving patient self-care of the diabetic foot. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2011;101(1):78–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Miller W, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. New York: 2nd The Guilford Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Erschens R, Fahse B, Festl-Wietek T, Herrmann-Werner A, Keifenheim KE, Zipfel S, et al. Training medical students in motivational interviewing using a blended learning approach: a proof-of-concept study. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1204810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Searight HR. Counseling patients in primary care: evidence-based strategies. Am Fam Phys. 2018;98(12):719–28.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Miller ET, Spilker J. Readiness to change and brief educational interventions: successful strategies to reduce stroke risk. J Neurosci Nurs. 2003;35(4):215–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jaguga F, Ott MA, Kwobah EK, Apondi E, Giusto A, Barasa J, et al. Adapting a substance use screening and brief intervention for peer-delivery and for youth in Kenya. SSM Ment Health. 2023;4:100254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Frey AJ, Lee J, Small JW, Sibley M, Owens JS, Skidmore B, et al. Mechanisms of motivational interviewing: a conceptual framework to guide practice and research. Prev Sci. 2021;22(6):689–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Helping people change and grow. New York: Guilford Publications; 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rimayanti MU, O’Halloran PD, Shields N, Morris R, Taylor NF. Comparing process evaluations of motivational interviewing interventions for managing health conditions and health promotions: a scoping review. Patient Educ Counsel. 2022;105(5):1170–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Centis E, Petroni ML, Ghirelli V, Cioni M, Navacchia P, Guberti E, et al. Motivational interviewing adapted to group setting for the treatment of relapse in the behavioral therapy of obesity. A clinical audit. Nutrients. 2020;12(12):3881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ford ES, Bergmann MM, Kröger J, Schienkiewitz A, Weikert C, Boeing H. Healthy living is the best revenge: findings from the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(15):1355–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lundahl BW, Kunz C, Brownell C, Tollefson D, Burke BL. A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: twenty-five years of empirical studies. Res Soc Work Pract. 2010;20:137–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carroll KM, Ball SA, Nich C, Martino S, Frankforter TL, Farentinos C, et al. Motivational interviewing to improve treatment engagement and outcome in individuals seeking treatment for substance abuse: a multisite effectiveness study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;81(3):301–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rongkavilit C, Wang B, Naar-King S, Bunupuradah T, Parsons JT, Panthong A, et al. Motivational interviewing targeting risky sex in HIV-positive young Thai men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(2):329–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sönmez Sari E, Kitiş Y. The effect of nurse-led motivational interviewing based on the trans-theoretical model on promoting physical activity in healthy older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Pract. 2024;30(2):e13252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Polcin D, Witbrodt J, Nayak MB, Korcha R, Pugh S, Salinardi M. Characteristics of women with alcohol use disorders who benefit from intensive motivational interviewing. Subst Abus. 2022;43(1):23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lovejoy TI. Telephone-delivered motivational interviewing targeting sexual risk behavior reduces depression, anxiety, and stress in HIV-positive older adults. Ann Behav Med. 2012;44(3):416–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. BlansonHenkemans OA, van der Boog PJ, Lindenberg J, van der Mast CA, Neerincx MA, Zwetsloot-Schonk BJ. An online lifestyle diary with a persuasive computer assistant providing feedback on self-management. Technol Health Care. 2009;17(3):253–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Meinzer MC, Oddo LE, Vasko JM, Murphy JG, Iwamoto D, Lejuez CW, et al. Motivational interviewing plus behavioral activation for alcohol misuse in college students with ADHD. Psychol Addict Behav. 2021;35(7):803–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Waite I, Grant D, Mayes J, Greenwood S. Can a brief behavioural change intervention encourage hospital patients with low physical activity levels to engage and initiate a change in physical activity behaviour? Physiotherapy. 2020;108:22–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Oveisi S, Stein L, Babaeepour E, Araban M. The impact of motivational interviewing on relapse to substance use among women in Iran: a randomized clinical trial. BMC psychiatry. 2020;20:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmiege SJ, Magnan RE, Yeater EA, Ewing SWF, Bryan AD. Randomized trial to reduce risky sexual behavior among justice-involved adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2021;60(1):47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Saffari M, Sanaeinasab H, Mobini M, Sepandi M, Rashidi-Jahan H, Sehlo MG, et al. Effect of a health-education program using motivational interviewing on oral health behavior and self-efficacy in pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Oral Sci. 2020;128(4):308–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Riley L, Guthold R, Cowan M, Savin S, Bhatti L, Armstrong T, et al. The World Health Organization STEPwise approach to noncommunicable disease risk-factor surveillance: methods, challenges, and opportunities. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(1):74–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. D’Urzo KA, Flood SM, Baillie C, Skelding S, Dobrowolski S, Houlden RL, et al. Evaluating the implementation and impact of a motivational interviewing workshop on medical student knowledge and social cognitions towards counseling patients on lifestyle behaviors. Teach Learn Med. 2020;32(2):218–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Levensky ER, Forcehimes A, O’Donohue WT, Beitz K. Motivational interviewing: an evidence-based approach to counseling helps patients follow treatment recommendations. Am J Nurs. 2007;107(10):50–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Berger DJ, Nickolich S, Nasir M. Introduction to tobacco cessation and motivational interviewing: evaluation of a lecture and case-based learning activity for medical students. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e53704.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Edwards EJ, Arora B, Green P, Bannatyne AJ, Nielson T. Teaching brief motivational interviewing to medical students using a pedagogical framework. Patient Educ Counsel. 2022;105(7):2315–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Manojna GS, Madhavi BD. Effectiveness of teaching motivational interview technique to third professional year medical students to improve counseling skills–An interventional study. MRIMS J Health Sci. 2024:10.4103. [Epub ahead of print] June 19, 2024.

  31. Kaltman S, Tankersley A. Teaching motivational interviewing to medical students: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2020;95(3):458–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kirkpatrick JD, Kirkpatrick WK. Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bell K, Cole BA. Improving medical students’ success in promoting health behavior change: a curriculum evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(9):1503–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brown RL, Pfeifer JM, Gjerde CL, Seibert CS, Haq CL. Teaching patient-centered tobacco intervention to first-year medical students. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(5):534–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Martino S, Haeseler F, Belitsky R, Pantalon M, Fortin AI. Teaching brief motivational interviewing to Year three medical students. Med Educ. 2007;41(2):160–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mounsey AL, Bovbjerg V, White L, Gazewood J. Do students develop better motivational interviewing skills through role-play with standardised patients or with student colleagues? Med Educ. 2006;40(8):775–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Poirier MK, Clark MM, Cerhan JH, Pruthi S, Geda YE, Dale LC. Teaching motivational interviewing to first-year medical students to improve counseling skills in health behavior change. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2004;79:327–31 Elsevier.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. White LL, Gazewood JD, Mounsey AL. Teaching students behavior change skills: description and assessment of a new Motivational interviewing curriculum. Med Teach. 2007;29(4):e67-71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Haeseler F, Fortin AHT, Pfeiffer C, Walters C, Martino S, Haeseler F, et al. Assessment of a motivational interviewing curriculum for year 3 medical students using a standardized patient case. Patient Educ Counsel. 2011;84(1):27–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lim BT, Moriarty H, Huthwaite M. 'Being-in-role’: a teaching innovation to enhance empathic communication skills in medical students. Med Teach. 2011;33(12):e663-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Opheim A, Andreasson S, Eklund AB, Prescott P. The effects of training medical students in motivational interviewing. Health Educ J. 2009;68(3):170–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Brogan Hartlieb K, Engle B, Obeso V, Pedoussaut MA, Merlo LJ, Brown DR. Advanced patient-centered communication for health behavior change: motivational interviewing workshops for medical learners. MedEdPORTAL. 2016;12:10455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gecht-Silver M, Lee D, Ehrlich-Jones L, Bristow M. Evaluation of a motivational interviewing training for third-year medical students. Fam Med. 2016;48(2):132–5.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kaltman S, WinklerPrins V, Serrano A, Talisman N. Enhancing motivational interviewing training in a family medicine clerkship. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(1):80–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Purkabiri K, Steppacher V, Bernardy K, Karl N, Vedder V, Borgmann M, et al. Outcome of a four-hour smoking cessation counselling workshop for medical students. Tob Induc Dis. 2016;14:37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Jacobs NN, Calvo L, Dieringer A, Hall A, Danko R. Motivational interviewing training: a case-based curriculum for preclinical medical students. MedEdPORTAL. 2021;17:11104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Keifenheim KE, Velten-Schurian K, Fahse B, Erschens R, Loda T, Wiesner L, et al. “A change would do you good”: Training medical students in Motivational Interviewing using a blended-learning approach - a pilot evaluation. Patient Educ Counsel. 2019;102(4):663–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Plass AM, Covic A, Lohrberg L, Albright G, Goldman R, Von Steinbüchel N. Effectiveness of a minimal virtual motivational interviewing training for first years medical students: differentiating between pre-test and then-test. Patient Educ Counsel. 2022;105(6):1457–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Martino S, Haeseler F, Belitsky R, Pantalon M, Fortin AHT. Teaching brief motivational interviewing to Year three medical students. Med Educ. 2007;41(2):160–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Miller WR. The evolution of motivational interviewing. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2023:1–17.

  53. Small JW, Frey A, Lee J, Seeley JR, Scott TM, Sibley MH. Fidelity of motivational interviewing in school-based intervention and research. Prev Sci. 2021;22(6):712–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rollnick S, Kaplan SG, Rutschman R. Motivational interviewing in schools: conversations to improve behavior and learning. Guilford Publications; 2016.

  55. Pincus R, Bridges CW, Remley TP. School counselors using motivational interviewing. J Prof Counsel Pract Theory Res. 2018;45(2):82–94.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lin CH, Chiang SL, Heitkemper MM, Hung YJ, Lee MS, Tzeng WC, et al. Effects of telephone-based motivational interviewing in lifestyle modification program on reducing metabolic risks in middle-aged and older women with metabolic syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;60:12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Dobber J, Latour C, Snaterse M, van Meijel B, ter Riet G, Scholte op Reimer W, et al. Developing nurses’ skills in motivational interviewing to promote a healthy lifestyle in patients with coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019;18(1):28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Almansour M, AlQurmalah SI, Abdul Razack HI. Motivational interviewing-an evidence-based, collaborative, goal-oriented communication approach in lifestyle medicine: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2023;18(5):1170–8.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Polcin DL, Korcha R, Witbrodt J, Mericle AA, Mahoney E. Motivational Interviewing Case Management (MICM) for persons on probation or parole entering sober living houses. Crim Justice Behav. 2018;45(11):1634–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sarpavaara H. The causes of change and no-change in substance users’ talk during motivational interviewing in the probation service in Finland. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2017;61(4):430–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Bottel L, te Wildt BT, Brand M, Pape M, Herpertz S, Dieris-Hirche J. Telemedicine as bridge to the offline world for person affected with problematic internet use or internet use disorder and concerned significant others. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076221144184.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Creech SK, Pulverman CS, Kahler CW, Orchowski LM, Shea MT, Wernette GT, et al. Computerized intervention in primary care for women veterans with sexual assault histories and psychosocial health risks: a randomized clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(5):1097–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Duthie CJ, Cameron C, Smith-Han K, Beckert L, Delpachitra S, Garland SN, et al. Reasons for why medical students prefer specific sleep management strategies. Behav Sleep Med. 2024;22(4):516–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Clancy R, Taylor A. Engaging clinicians in motivational interviewing: comparing online with face-to-face post-training consolidation. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2016;25(1):51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Frost H, Campbell P, Maxwell M, O’Carroll RE, Dombrowski SU, Williams B, et al. Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on adult behaviour change in health and social care settings: a systematic review of reviews. PloS one. 2018;13(10):e0204890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Schaper K, Woelber JP, Jaehne A. Can the spirit of motivational interviewing be taught online? A comparative study in general practitioners. Patient Educ Counsel. 2024;125:108297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kolb DA. Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Sadle River: Prentice Hall; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Miller WR, Sanchez VC. Motivating young adults for treatment and lifestyle change. 1994.

  69. Frank JR, Mungroo R, Ahmad Y, Wang M, De Rossi S, Horsley T. Toward a definition of competency-based education in medicine: a systematic review of published definitions. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):631–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lim E, Wynaden D, Heslop K. Using Q-methodology to explore mental health nurses’ knowledge and skills to use recovery-focused care to reduce aggression in acute mental health settings. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2021;30(2):413–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lönnfjord V, Hagquist C. The psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the general self-efficacy scale: a Rasch analysis based on adolescent data. Curr Psychol. 2018;37:703–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Additionally, the authors would like to thank Universiti Malaysia Sarawak for the support provided for this publication.

Funding

Open Access funding provided by Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, 94300, Malaysia

    Leonard Yik Chuan Lei, Keng Sheng Chew, Chee Shee Chai & Yoke Yong Chen

Authors
  1. Leonard Yik Chuan Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keng Sheng Chew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chee Shee Chai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yoke Yong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LLYC, the first author, made significant contributions to developing the idea, the searches, conducting analysis and was responsible for drafting the manuscript. KSC and CYY contributed significantly to the conceptualization, alignment and reviewing of the manuscript. KSC and CYY and CCS participated in the analysis and writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonard Yik Chuan Lei.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study did not require ethical approval or consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lei, L., Chew, K., Chai, C. et al. Evidence for motivational interviewing in educational settings among medical schools: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 24, 856 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05845-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05845-w

Keywords

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us