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
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.