Table 4:
Adhered to protocol | n (%) |
---|---|
SW explained her role within the TALK study. | 26 (90) |
SW incorporated information gathered from baseline and one month follow-up (for example, asked whether patient watched the video or read the booklet, prompted the patient to explain where he or she is in the process—level of kidney function or disease, asked patient how long he or she has been dealing with the disease, asked patient what he or she understands about kidney disease). | 28 (97) |
SW asked patient the patient-specific question outlined in protocol. | 29 (100) |
SW accompanied patient-specific question with its respective response options. | 28 (97) |
SW asked relevant “barrier” question based on the patient's response to his or her specific question (applicable to 27 patients). | 23 (85) |
SW asked additional questions outlined in protocol following the patient-specific question (applicable to 18 patients). | 17 (94) |
SW discussed recommendations for action with patient (for example, a discussion based on the next steps the patient claims he or she is going to make, patient-perceived barriers, and how the patient believes he/she is going to accomplish actions). | 26 (90) |
Demonstration of professional skills in executing intervention | |
SW showed evidence of rapport building. | 29 (100) |
SW appeared competent. | 29 (100) |
SW asked relevant follow-up questions. | 29 (100) |
Conversational drift was not evidenced in the first visit (applicable to 25 patients). | 21 (84) |
Conversational drift was not evidenced in the second visit (applicable to 27 patients). | 25 (93) |
SW assessed patient's comprehension of the intervention (for example, SW asked patient if he or she had any questions, needed clarification about a particular topic, and so forth). | 28 (97) |
SW assessed patient's ability to perform intervention skills in a setting in which the intervention may be implemented. | 28 (97) |
Note: SW = social worker; TALK = Talking About Live Kidney Donation.