A randomized pragmatic feasibility trial to promote student perspective-taking on client physical activity level: a collaborative project
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Health-care practitioners have opportunities to talk with clients about unhealthy behaviors. How practitioners approach these conversations involves skill to be effective. Thus, teaching health-care students to communicate empathetically with clients should promote effective client-practitioner conversations about health behavior change. The primary objective of this pilot trial was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of a theoretically informed intervention designed to improve perspective-taking. METHODS: For inclusion in this randomized mixed-methods parallel two-arm trial, participants needed to be a student at the investigators' Canadian university and have completed course content on behavior change communication. Using a 1:1 allocation ratio, participants in Respiratory, Physical, and Occupational Therapy; Nurse Practitioner; and Kinesiology programs were randomly assigned to full or partial intervention conditions. Full intervention participants completed a perspective-taking workshop and practiced perspective-taking prior to an in-lab dialogue with a client-actor (masked to condition) about physical activity. Partial intervention participants received the workshop after the dialogue. We assessed feasibility and appropriateness by comparing recruitment rates, protocol, and psychometric outcomes to criteria. We assessed acceptability (secondary outcome) by analyzing exit interviews. RESULTS: We screened and randomized 163 participants (82 = full intervention; 81 = partial intervention). We fell slightly short of our recruitment success criteria (10-15 participants per program) when 2/50 Occupational Therapy students participated. We met some but not all of our protocol criteria: Some full intervention participants did not practice perspective-taking before the dialogue, because they did not see anyone during the practice period or did not have a practice opportunity. Psychometric outcomes met the criteria, except for one measure that demonstrated ceiling effects and low reliability (Cronbach's alpha < .70). There were no adverse events related to participation. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention should be largely feasible, appropriate, and acceptable to deliver. We suggest changes that are large enough to warrant conducting another pilot study. We outline recommended improvements that are applicable to researchers and educators interested in recruitment, adherence to home practice, and online uptake of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered retrospectively on November 8, 2023, at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06123507 .
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».