MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987192180 · doi:10.3399/bjgp12x659466

Making health habitual: the psychology of ‘habit-formation’ and general practice

2012· article· en· W1987192180 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersMedical Research CouncilCancer Research UK
KeywordsBehaviour changeAdvice (programming)Health careHealth professionalsBehavior changeMedicinePsychologyHabitApplied psychologySocial psychologyNursingComputer sciencePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Secretary of State recently proposed that the NHS: ‘... take every opportunity to prevent poor health and promote healthy living by making the most of healthcare professionals’ contact with individual patients.’ 1 Patients trust health professionals as a source of advice on ‘lifestyle’ (that is, behaviour) change, and brief opportunistic advice can be effective.2 However, many health professionals shy away from giving advice on modifying behaviour because they find traditional behaviour change strategies time-consuming to explain and difficult for the patient to implement.2 Furthermore, even when patients successfully initiate the recommended changes, the gains are often transient3 because few of the traditional behaviour change strategies have built-in mechanisms for maintenance. Brief advice is usually based on advising patients on what to change and why (for example, reducing saturated fat intake to reduce the risk of heart attack). Psychologically, such advice is designed to engage conscious deliberative motivational processes, which Kahneman terms ‘slow’ or ‘System 2’ processes.4 However, the effects are typically short-lived because motivation and attention wane. Brief advice on how to change, engaging automatic (‘System 1’) processes, may offer a valuable alternative with potential for long-term impact. Opportunistic health behaviour advice must be easy for health professionals to give and easy for patients to implement to fit into routine health care. We propose that simple advice on how to make healthy actions into habits — externally-triggered automatic responses to frequently encountered contexts — offers a useful option in the behaviour change toolkit. Advice for creating habits is easy for clinicians to deliver and easy for patients to implement: repeat a chosen behaviour in the same context, until it becomes automatic and effortless. While often used as a synonym for frequent or customary behaviour in everyday parlance, within psychology, ‘habits’ are defined as actions that …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it