Evaluation of Combined Educational Methods on Motivational Interviewing for Final-Year Medical Students: Mixed Methods Study.

Background: Motivational interviewing (MI) is a patient-centered communication approach that supports health behavior change; yet, its integration into undergraduate medical curricula remains inconsistent. Combined learning models that comprise face-to-face instruction with structured web-based components may strengthen MI training, but evidence supporting their effectiveness among medical students, particularly in Asian contexts, is limited. Objective: This study evaluated the impact of a combined MI educational model on final-year medical students' MI knowledge, confidence, and application in real patient encounters during clinical rotations. Methods: This study used a sequential explanatory mixed methods design. The quantitative component used a before-and-after study to evaluate changes in MI knowledge and confidence among final-year medical students enrolled in an Ambulatory Care course in 2024. All 130 students participated in a 2-hour interactive MI workshop, and 120 completed pre- and postintervention questionnaires assessing MI knowledge and self-reported confidence. Students were also provided access to a 3-hour web-based MI learning module, and learning-management system analytics were used to track engagement. The qualitative component consisted of semistructured interviews with 12 purposively selected students, conducted to explore their experiences applying MI during clinical encounters. Quantitative data were analyzed using paired-samples t tests, and qualitative data were analyzed using inductive conventional content analysis. Findings from both components were integrated during interpretation to provide a comprehensive understanding of the educational intervention. Results: Students demonstrated a significant improvement in MI knowledge following the educational intervention (pretest mean 8.87, SD 2.69; posttest mean 15.04, SD 2.99; t₁₁₉=-18.45; P<.001; η²=0.74). After the workshop, 96.9% (126/130) of students reported applying MI with patients, and 92.3% (n=120) agreed that the combined learning approach was adequate for supporting clinical use. Learning analytics data showed that 76.9% (n=100) of students enrolled in the web-based MI module, and 51% (n=51) completed all lessons. Students most frequently applied MI when counseling patients with diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, especially related to diet, physical activity, and medication adherence. Interview findings indicated that students mainly used brief MI, were most comfortable with engaging and focusing, and developed greater empathy, confidence, and patient-centered communication skills. Challenges included limited time during consultations, clinical workload, and difficulty applying all MI processes to complex cases. Conclusions: A combined MI learning approach integrating a short workshop with a web-based course was associated with higher MI knowledge scores and greater self-reported confidence among students, as well as reported use of MI-informed communication strategies during clinical encounters. Students perceived MI as a practical and ethically grounded communication approach that can enhance patient engagement, particularly in the management of chronic diseases. Introducing MI training longitudinally through a spiral curriculum, with opportunities for repeated practice and reinforcement, may help strengthen behavior-change communication competencies in undergraduate medical education.