The trial was designed to examine the efficacy of MI in encouraging couples to refer to the PCC for reevaluation of blood indexes and, if needed, to the PND center for genetic testing. The first phase of the study was consistent with the objective of MI (evokes self-motivation), and increased self-referral to the PCC for reevaluation of blood indexes one month post-intervention.
Previous studies proposed that the rate of short-term therapeutic compliance was about 70%-80% for different patient populations and diseases. While, the lowest rate of compliance (20% - 30%) was associated with lifestyle changes (
26,
27). The current study results showed that the rate of short-term compliance with the first phase of BT screening program was 90.14%, although it was necessary for high-risk couples to return to the PCC after one month (of initiating iron supplementation) for re-evaluation of blood indexes and differential diagnosis of thalassemia and iron deficiency.
In fact, the couples who did not return to the PCC were not able to obtain the necessary certification to register their marriage officially. Therefore, a part of the observed compliance in the first phase might be associated with this issue. Ryan noted that external regulation is a short-term approach to change (and sustaining positive behaviors), which underscores the role of motivation (
28).
The preventive fraction showed that despite the external regulation and force applied to the two groups, for blood screening tests, MI could significantly lower the rate of non-compliance 0.62% with BT screening tests. Studies suggested that efficacy of MI might be due to its collaborative nature rather than the one-way flow of information and that the counselor’s skill of empathic understanding can provide a safe atmosphere that paves the way for acceptance and positive changes (
29). Thus, MI is a directive method to enhance intrinsic motivation and instigating change in a predetermined direction while working with patients/clients who are ambivalent or in the pre-contemplation stage (
28,
30,
31).
In the second phase, the outcomes manifested a compliance rate of 20.83% (PF= 17%) in eligible couples who had to refer to the PND center for genetic screening tests, at five months follow-up. This rate was very low in comparison with the first phase, but compared to the pilot study (8.93% in 2014) and control group (5.26%) was about 2.3 and four times higher, respectively.
The reduced compliance rate can occur for a variety of reasons. First, the genetic screening tests for BT screening program (after blood screening tests to register marriage officially) is not mandatory; which can partly explain the role of the external regulation and force on compliance with blood screening tests. Second, the couples categorized as low-risk were told that the risk of having a baby with BTM was very low and genetic testing was not mandatory. Schneider proposed that not having a health care provider’s recommendation is the most important predictor of not performing genetic testing (
32). In the present study, no one in the low-risk group referred for genetic testing to the PND. According to Ryan, an individual may lose his/her motivation when he/she does not benefit from change or simply does not deem it as important (
28).
Finally, in accordance with the current study findings regarding the high-risk group, Backes argued that even with selective referral, patient compliance was still a major problem and indicated that only 28% of all eligible patients referred to a genetic counselor (
33). According to Elwyn, while MI is most useful in situations that commonly require behavior change to improve health outcomes, other methods (e g, shared decision making) help couples to make decisions where there is more than one option to choose (
25). As a result, in the present study, the elements of both MI (in phase 1) and shared decision making (in phase 2) may be necessary to obtain better results in the second phase.
There were a number of limitations to the present study. First, considering ethical (consent permission) issues and sense of threat, authors were not able to address fidelity. Second, in the first phase, authors were not able to measure the net effect of MI (without the role of mandating) on referring to the PCC, although it was applied to both groups. Third, limited sample size and lack of qualitative data that could help with understanding couples’ real reasons for noncompliance and not referral to the PND center for genetic testing. Despite these limitations, the present study, as the first study on this issue showed that MI may promote efficacy of compliance with BT screening program in the short-term interventions.
5.1. Conclusions
In summary, MI with its goal-oriented nature and directive method seems to be efficient in increasing short-term compliance with BT screening program. The current study results showed that self-motivation and mandatory rules affect compliance with the BT screening program. Thus, to increase long-term compliance with this program, it is necessary to conduct a qualitative study to identify factors contributing to non-compliance. Also, the elements of shared decision making may be necessary to obtain better results in the second phase.