Cited by 26Innovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Advancing Motivational Interviewing Training with Artificial Intelligence: ReadMI

Open access
Hershberger, Paul J, Pei, Yong, Bricker, Dean A, Crawford, Timothy N, Shivakumar, Ashutosh, Vasoya, Miteshkumar, Medaramitta, Raveendra, Rechtin, Maria +2 more·2021·Advances in Medical Education and Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based, brief interventional approach that has been demonstrated to be highly effective in triggering change in high-risk lifestyle behaviors. MI tends to be underutilized in clinical settings, in part because of limited and ineffective training. To implement MI more widely, there is a critical need to improve the MI training process in a manner that can provide prompt and efficient feedback. Our team has developed and tested a training tool, Real-time Assessment of Dialogue in Motivational Interviewing (ReadMI), that uses natural language processing (NLP) to provide immediate MI metrics and thereby address the need for more effective MI training. METHODS: Metrics produced by the ReadMI tool from transcripts of 48 interviews conducted by medical residents with a simulated patient were examined to identify relationships between physician-speaking time and other MI metrics, including the number of open- and closed-ended questions. In addition, interrater reliability statistics were conducted to determine the accuracy of the ReadMI's analysis of physician responses. RESULTS: = 0.007), including open-ended questions, reflective statements, or use of a change ruler. CONCLUSION: ReadMI produces specific metrics that a trainer can share with a student, resident, or clinician for immediate feedback. Given the time constraints on targeted skill development in health professions training, ReadMI decreases the need to rely on subjective feedback and/or more time-consuming video review to illustrate important teaching points.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/amep.s312373

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [6]Douaihy A, Kelly TM, Gold MA, editors. Motivational Interviewing: A Guide for Medical Trainees. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hershberger, P. J., Pei, Y., Bricker, D. A., Crawford, T. N., Shivakumar, A., Vasoya, M., Medaramitta, R., Rechtin, M., Bositty, A., & Wilson, J. F.
Affiliations
Wright State University (US)
Corresponding author
Hershberger, Paul J
Venue
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Published
2021-06
Volume
Volume 12
Pages
613-618
ISSN
1179-7258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3171224832
Cited by
26
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advances in Medical Education and Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CORE Scholar (Wright State University) (submittedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R21HS026548)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
motivational interviewing, artificial intelligence, natural language processing, training feedback, physician-patient communication, open-ended questions, medical residents, inter-rater reliability, standardized patients

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review