An examination of the stages of change construct for health promotion within organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this research is to examine the organizational stages of change construct of the transtheoretical model of behavior change. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Data on organizational and individual stages of change for tobacco reduction, physical activity promotion, and heart healthy eating promotion were collected from service provider, senior management, and board level members of provincial health authorities across three data collection periods. FINDINGS: Results revealed significant correlations between individual and organizational stages of change for management level respondents, but inconsistent relationships for service providers and no significant correlations for board level respondents. There were no significant differences between respondent levels for organizational stage of change for any of the promotion behaviors. In general, changes in stage failed to predict whether there was a belief in an organization's capability of addressing any of the health promotion activities. There was also a large amount of variance between individual respondents for most health authorities in their reported organizational stages of change for physical activity and healthy eating. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Based on the results of the present study it is concluded that there is little evidence that the organizational stages of change construct is valid. The evidence indicates that assessing individual readiness within an organization may be as effective as asking individuals to report on organizational stages of readiness. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper reports on the validity of the organizational stages of change construct in a health promotion context and provides information for those who are considering using it.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".