Changing provider behaviour to increase nurse visits for obesity in family practice: the 5As Team randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> There is increasing recognition that health care professionals often fail to provide meaningful obesity care in routine clinical practice. There is scant information on how to support practice change. The objective of the 5AsT trial was to assess whether a co-created educational intervention would increase the quantity of obesity visits conducted by family practice nurses. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a randomized controlled trial with convergent mixed-methods evaluation in a primary care network in Alberta, Canada. The intervention, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and 5As of Obesity Management, included 12 2-hour interactive educational sessions from November 2013 to April 2014. Twenty-four teams of nurses, mental health workers and dietitians were randomly assigned to receive the intervention or regular training. The primary outcome measure was the rate ratio of nurse visits for adult obesity care to total clinical visits. Qualitative thematic analysis was previously used to identify barriers and facilitators to intervention uptake. In this study, mixed-methods analysis assessed the impact of these factors on individual nurses’ outcomes. <h3>Results:</h3> There was no significant increase in visits over the 6-month intervention (rate ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–2.03) nor the 9-month post-intervention period (rate ratio 1.38, 95% CI 0.87–2.19). However, provider confidence, views of obesity management, role identity and team and patient relationships were found to affect individual nurses’ uptake of the intervention. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Although the intervention did not demonstrate a significant increase in nurse visits for obesity care, this study provides insights into health care practitioners’ challenges in changing their approach to obesity management. To improve provider capacity to change effectively within their teams, interventions need to foster not only provider knowledge but also confidence. <b>Trial registration:</b>ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01967797.
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 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 | 0.027 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".