MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168114146 · doi:10.1080/13548500802537903

The UK national institute for health and clinical excellence public health guidance on behaviour change: A brief introduction

2008· article· en· W2168114146 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Abraham, Michael P. Kelly, Robert West, Susan Michie

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Health & Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsExcellencePublic healthPolitical scienceMedicineEngineering ethicsEngineeringNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In October 2007, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published 'Guidelines for Behaviour change at population, community and individual levels' (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Behaviour change at population, community and individual levels (Public Health Guidance 6), 2007, from http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/PH6). This article provides a brief overview of, and introduction to, the guidance focussing on three of its recommendations. First, the guidance outlines skills and competencies required by those involved in the design and evaluation of behaviour change interventions (BCIs). Second, it specifies a series of key psychological change targets which should be considered in interventions intended to change individual behaviour. Third, it highlights the need to plan intervention design and evaluation so that intervention components or techniques are linked directly to causal process which account for change. In addition, the guidance outlines a research agenda. Based on an analysis of the limitations of the available evidence base, research recommendations advise researchers on how to improve the quality of research into BCIs (including evaluations) and thereby advance the science of behaviour change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0180.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.019

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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations234
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology Health & MedicineSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207