MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990547220 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz185.813

Mobilizing knowledge in behaviour change to promote health; the case of the Behaviour Change Wheel

2019· article· en· W2990547220 on OpenAlexaff
Ariane Bélanger‐Gravel

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthBehaviour changeBehavior changePerceptionPsychological interventionPublic relationsBody of knowledgeIntervention (counseling)PsychologyField (mathematics)Sociology of scientific knowledgeKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceMedicineSociologySocial psychologyNursingComputer scienceEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Issue/problem Over the past decades, researchers from many fields have built an impressive body of knowledge regarding behaviour change. However, the use of this knowledge for accurately designing/delivering/executing behaviour change programs is challenging for many public health practitioners. Description of the problem To support effective knowledge mobilization in behaviour change and to build a coherent and useful body of scientific evidence, leading researchers in behavioural sciences have developed and refined a number of tools for designing interventions. Among these tools, the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) was built on an impressive effort to synthetize available evidence regarding intervention development frameworks, behaviour change theories, and behaviour change techniques. However, studies highlighted some issues associated with the use of these methodological innovations. Working with our public health partners in the field of health communication, we realized that applying models such as the BCW is far from being mundane practices. To support optimal knowledge mobilization in behavioural sciences, we are developing a research agenda to understand perceptions and motivations of public health practitioners toward innovations such as the BCW and to develop and evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies. Results The initiative will contribute to the development of new scientific knowledge regarding mechanisms underlying effective knowledge mobilization in behaviour change and will further support the adoption of these evidence-based practices within the field of public health. Lessons Although rapidly adopted by the community of researchers, it is not clear whether or not public health practitioners would be as willing, or capable of using the BCW to design and deliver programs. Issues regarding knowledge mobilization in behaviour change should be addressed to improve the uptake of this knowledge in practice.

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.081
Scholarly communication0.0170.026
Open science0.0050.019
Research integrity0.0190.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.283
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.159 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207