Understanding (de)motivating interaction styles of healthcare professionals in training: a profile approach.

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Advances in Health Sciences Education Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1007/s10459-025-10414-x
Laura Hesters, Sofie Compernolle, Marieke De Craemer, Veerle Duprez, Ann Van Hecke, Katrien De Cocker
{"title":"Understanding (de)motivating interaction styles of healthcare professionals in training: a profile approach.","authors":"Laura Hesters, Sofie Compernolle, Marieke De Craemer, Veerle Duprez, Ann Van Hecke, Katrien De Cocker","doi":"10.1007/s10459-025-10414-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-management is important for people coping with chronic diseases. The self-determination theory (SDT) emphasizes the role of healthcare professionals' (HCPs) (de)motivating interaction styles in either supporting or thwarting patients' self-management behavior. Since developing (de)motivating interaction styles starts during education, this study aimed to identify profiles among HCPs in training based on their (de)motivating interaction styles and to assess how these profiles differ in sample characteristics, SDT-beliefs, and self-efficacy in self-management support. Cross-sectional data were collected using self-reported questionnaires among nurses (n = 125) and physiotherapists (n = 257) in training (total participants: n = 382). Cluster analyses were performed to identify the profiles followed by chi-square tests and MANCOVA-tests to assess profile differences. Five profiles were identified, labelled as: motivating (16%), active (22%), undifferentiated (29%), demotivating (17%) and inactive (17%). The motivating profile contained fewer men (10%), while the demotivating profile had a higher proportion of men (52%) compared to the whole sample distribution (28%). Fewer nursing students were categorized to the active profile (20%) compared to the overall sample distribution (33%). Higher SDT-beliefs and self-efficacy in self-management support were noted in the motivating and active profiles as opposed to the demotivating and inactive profiles. These results contribute to a better understanding of healthcare students' interaction styles during patient self-management support. In education of HCPs, a focus on improving SDT-beliefs and self-efficacy in self-management support, may help HCPs to improve their interaction profile towards people with chronic diseases.</p>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10414-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Self-management is important for people coping with chronic diseases. The self-determination theory (SDT) emphasizes the role of healthcare professionals' (HCPs) (de)motivating interaction styles in either supporting or thwarting patients' self-management behavior. Since developing (de)motivating interaction styles starts during education, this study aimed to identify profiles among HCPs in training based on their (de)motivating interaction styles and to assess how these profiles differ in sample characteristics, SDT-beliefs, and self-efficacy in self-management support. Cross-sectional data were collected using self-reported questionnaires among nurses (n = 125) and physiotherapists (n = 257) in training (total participants: n = 382). Cluster analyses were performed to identify the profiles followed by chi-square tests and MANCOVA-tests to assess profile differences. Five profiles were identified, labelled as: motivating (16%), active (22%), undifferentiated (29%), demotivating (17%) and inactive (17%). The motivating profile contained fewer men (10%), while the demotivating profile had a higher proportion of men (52%) compared to the whole sample distribution (28%). Fewer nursing students were categorized to the active profile (20%) compared to the overall sample distribution (33%). Higher SDT-beliefs and self-efficacy in self-management support were noted in the motivating and active profiles as opposed to the demotivating and inactive profiles. These results contribute to a better understanding of healthcare students' interaction styles during patient self-management support. In education of HCPs, a focus on improving SDT-beliefs and self-efficacy in self-management support, may help HCPs to improve their interaction profile towards people with chronic diseases.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
期刊最新文献
Data science in health professions education: promises and challenges. It takes a village: an ethnographic study on how undergraduate medical students use each other to learn clinical reasoning in the workplace. Understanding (de)motivating interaction styles of healthcare professionals in training: a profile approach. Using clinical cases with diagnostic errors and malpractice claims: impact on anxiety and diagnostic performance in GP clinical reasoning education. Developing an educational blueprint for surgical handover curricula: a critical review of the evidence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1