Educator experience with group interactive dialogue to educate and activate (IDEA) using conversation maps Conference Paper uri icon
  • Aims:
  • Analysis:
  • Conclusions:
  • Methods:
  • Results:
  • A qualitative analysis was conducted as part of an ongoing randomized trial comparing two different
    educational interventions (Group IDEA and Individual Education) to Usual Care. As part of the study, educators at
    HealthPartners clinics in Minneapolis, MN and ABQ Health Partners in Albuquerque, NM were trained on how to
    use Conversation Maps (CM). All educators completed a Likert scale questionnaire after each CM session with
    responses from 1-10 (10 being the best). An open-ended evaluation form was also used to solicit positive and
    negative opinions about the sessions.

  • Educator rated Likert scores of map sessions were excellent (mean scores for Maps 1, 2, 3, 4: Overall
    success 8.3, 7.6, 7.7, 8.8; Ease and comfort levels in facilitation 8.9, 8.9, 9.2, 9.5; Patient motivation to selfmanage
    7.7, 6.9, 8, 8.8). Scores did not differ significantly across sites or between maps. Positive comments on
    the maps outweighed the negatives. The challenges identified were: (1) Disruptive (especially angry or negative)
    people; (2) Distracting topics raised by patients and late arrivals; (3) Variable reading levels among patients (too
    hard or too easy); and (4) Not enough time to cover the content (especially nutrition).

  • In order to improve self-efficacy and clinical outcomes for people with diabetes, new approaches using
    more interactive methods of group education are being promoted. We report results of an educator evaluation
    of IDEA to assist others who may be interested in starting similar groups in their care settings.

  • The IDEA method was perceived positively by educators due to its ability to promote patient
    interaction, sharing, and meaningful discussion. To be successful, however, educators need tips and practice on
    handling disruptive patients, distractions, variance in literacy, and covering intended nutritional content in a
    group context.

  • The data consisted of 48 nurse and dietitian evaluations from two sites. The mean Likert scores of the
    educational experience were calculated and compared for each site and for each of the four CM topics (general
    information, monitoring, nutrition, and complications). All eight research team members also reviewed answers
    to the open-ended questions and group consensus was used to describe positive and negative themes.

  • publication date
  • 2009
  • Research
  • Diabetes
  • Health Education