Changing physicians' behavior: What works and thoughts on getting more things to work
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health services research consistently demonstrates a gap between research-based best clinical practice and what doctors actually do. Traditionally, the profession of medicine has behaved as if dissemination of research findings in peer-reviewed journals will eliminate this gap, even though professionals typically have less than 1 hour per week to read. This problem is complicated by the fact that physicians have not been trained generally to appraise published research, which is of variable quality in any event. Physicians interested in changing their practices also encounter organizational, peer group, and individual barriers at the same time as they face information overload and patient expectations. In a word, physicians' abilities to manage information is overwhelmed. This article both summarizes initiatives to improve physicians' information management through efforts to synthesize available evidence and describes the current evidence base of effectiveness and efficiency of dissemination and implementation strategies. We conclude that there is an imperfect evidence base to support decisions regarding strategies that are likely to be appropriate and effective under varying circumstances. Since this problem is compounded by the lack of a theoretical base for conceptualizing physician behavior change, we suggest exploring the applicability of behavioral theories to the understanding of professional behavior change. We also suggest exploring the use of theory-based process evaluations alongside randomized trials of dissemination and implementation strategies to further test theories and to explore causal mechanisms. Further research is required to explore determinants of provider behavior to better identify modifiable and non-modifiable effect modifiers, to develop methods of identifying barriers and facilitators to change, and to estimate the efficiency of dissemination and implementation strategies in the presence of different barriers and effect modifiers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it