Adopting health behavior change theory throughout the clinical practice guideline process
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
Adopting a theoretical framework throughout the clinical practice guideline (CPG) process (development, dissemination, implementation, and evaluation) can be useful in systematically identifying, addressing, and explaining behavioral influences impacting CPG uptake and effectiveness. This article argues that using a theoretical framework should increase the utility and probably the implementation of a CPG. A hypothetical scenario is provided using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to aid in our explanation. While other theories may be viable, the TPB is chosen because it accounts for a wide spectrum of behavioral factors known to influence physician behavior, and because its flexibility allows it to be used for different populations (e.g., specialists), behaviors, and contexts (e.g., hospital, private clinic). In addition, evidence has indicated that the TPB can influence physician behavior. Empirical research examining whether CPG utility can be significantly improved by appropriately selecting and implementing theory throughout the CPG process is warranted.
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 | 0.166 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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